WP/11568/2023 of KANTABAI BANSILAL BIYANI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

1 WP / 11563 / 2023+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1034 WRIT PETITION NO. 11563 OF 2023 KANTABAI BANSILAL BIYANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11568 OF 2023 KANTABAI BANSILAL BIYANI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for petitioner in both WPs : Mr. Ajay G. Talhar AGP for the respondent – State : Ms. D.S. Jape Advocate for respondent no. 6 : Mr. P.P. More ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 13 JANUARY 2026 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of present petitions, the petitioner assails the letters dated 07.08.2023, respectively, issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik to the Collector, Jalgaon whereby Additional Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector to pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Talhar points out that the order passed by the Collector which was in favour of the petitioner, 2026:BHC-AUG:1549 2 WP / 11563 / 2023+ was set aside by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on the basis of the simple application tendered by respondent no. 6. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, namely, Nilesh Gorakh Sagar filed a detailed affidavit in reply on 15.12.2025. The Additional Divisional Commissioner has made following submissions in paragraph nos. 7 and 8, which read as under :- “7. I say that a complaint was received by the Divisional Commissoner Office Nashik addressed to the Divisional commissioner by the respondent No. 6. I say that a preliminary enquiry into the complaint came to be conducted by verifying the records and thereafter office note dated 02/08/2023 came to the proposed to the Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division through e-office. I say that in the said office note it is proposed that the complaint as was filed by respondent no. 6 had substance. I say that the said office note proposed that collector Jalgaon be directed to conduct a review of earlier order dated 27/3/2023 and 29/3/2023 under the provisions of section 258 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 and pass a fresh order by following due procedure and by giving opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. 8. I say and submit that the said office note was put up along with the proposed letter by the Naib Thahshildar on 03.08.2023. I say and submit that the same was approved by me on 04/08/2023, I say that, I have put my note on the same, that after going through the original R & P prima facie it appears that the order dated 27/03/2023 and corrigendum dated 29/03/2023 are issued without following due procedure. I have also observed that the officer who has passed the orders is transferred and new officer has taken charge as Collector and therefore the new Collector should take the orders in question in review under section 258 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. I say that the said note and the letter prepared was thereafter forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner for approval. I further say that the Divisional Commissioner approved the same on 04/08/2023. I further say that upon approval, the letter 3 WP / 11563 / 2023+ came to be corrected by putting upon it “approved by Divisional Commissioner” and upon the said approval and directions of the Divisional Commissioner the impugned order came to be passed. I further say that the corrected draft of letter was submitted for approval and on 07/08/2023 and came to be approved on 07/08/2023. Annexed herto and marked as Exhibit “R-3” is copy of the office note.” Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present writ petitions by setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner. 5. In view of that, both the petitions are allowed. Letters dated 07.08.2023 issued by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 seeks a liberty to challenge the order passed by the District Collector by filing the appropriate proceedings. Mr. Talher objects for the same. 7. Liberty is granted to respondent no. 6 to challenge the same, by filing appropriate proceedings. 8. If the respondent no. 6 files appropriate proceedings, the issue of locus of the petitioner including whether the respondent no. 6 is an interested person, shall be considered by the authority and then the authority to consider the same and pass order in accordance with law. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE arp/