Bombay High Court
ABDULBARI GULAM HUSSAIN TUNGEKAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court found no apparent error in the impugned order and dismissed the review petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a review petition challenging the order dated 28 August 2026 in Writ Petition No. 11027 of 2026. They argued that the observations in paragraph 12 of that order, concerning the legal effect of a person being in cultivation of agricultural land on the Tiller’s day, might affect a pending application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for determination of purchase price. The Court examined the petition and found no apparent error in the original order nor any sufficient ground for a review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that the Section 32G proceeding must be decided on its own merits, independent of the earlier writ order.
Issues considered
- Whether there is any apparent error in the order dated 28 August 2026 warranting a review.
- Whether the observations in paragraph 12 of the order have any bearing on the application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- review petition
- Section 32G
- agricultural land
- cultivation
- Tiller’s day
- purchase price determination
- Maharashtra Tenancy Act
- writ petition
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
6-RPW123-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 123 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11027 OF 2026
Abdulbari Gulam Hussain Tungekar And
Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors …Respondents
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI Mr. Pradeep Thorat, aw Bhalchandra Shinde, for the
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI Petitioners.
Date: 2026.10.07
11:09:10 +0530
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 6th OCTOBER, 2026
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 28 th
August, 2026 passed by this Court in WP/11027/2026.
3. Upon hearing Mr. Thorat, on the substance of the matter,
this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the
record or any other sufficient ground to review the said order.
4. Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the observations in paragraph 12 of the order with regard
to the legal implications of a person being in cultivation of the
1/2
6-RPW123-2026.DOC
agricultural land on the Tiller’s day, may have a bearing on the
application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking
determination of the purchase price under Section 32G of the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
5. In view of the aforesaid apprehension, the review petition
stands disposed with clarification that the said proceeding
under Section 32G shall be decided on its own merits and in
accordance with law, without being influenced by the order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11027 of 2026.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.