Bombay High Court
UDAY CONSTRUCTIONS CO. THROUGH BALASAHEB V GAIKWADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is premature and cannot be entertained as no action has been taken on the Tehsildar's report.
Summary
The petitioner, Uday Constructions Co., challenged a fact-finding report prepared by the Tehsildar of Khed Taluka concerning alleged fraudulent 7/12 Fera documents. The petitioner claimed the report was illegal and that the Sub‑Divisional Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable when the Sub‑Divisional Officer had not yet taken any action on the report. Finding that no administrative action had been initiated, the Court held the petition premature. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain the petition but clarified that the petitioner may challenge any future action based on the report. The writ petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a Tehsildar's fact‑finding report is maintainable when the Sub‑Divisional Officer has not taken any action on it
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction in forwarding the report
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- premature petition
- writ petition
- administrative report
- challenge to report
- fact-finding report
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.03
CHITNIS 12:25:01 +0530 2-wp.4235.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4235 OF 2026
Uday Constructions Co.
Through it proprietor
Balasaheb V. Gaikwad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Rajendra Kamble for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 29tth AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. The petition raises a challenge to the report of the
Tehsildar, Taluka Khed, District Pune, forwarded to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, which, according to the petitioner, is illegal. In passing the
said report, according to the counsel for petitioner, the respondent
No.6 has acted beyond his jurisdiction. We are also informed that the
petitioner has already instituted a petition, which is pending for
adjudication before this Court.
N. S. Chitnis 1/2
2-wp.4235.2026.doc
Upon perusal of the report, we find that the report of the
Tehsildar forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer is a fact-finding
report as regards the allegation of preparation of fraudulent
documents in form of 7/12 Ferfar. However, since the Sub-Divisional
Officer has not initiated any action thereupon, and specifically as
against the petitioner, in our view, the relief sought in the petition, is
premature. We, therefore, refuse to entertain the same. However, we
must clarify that in case there arises any cause of action for the
petitioner to challenge any action of the Sub-Divisional Officer or any
higher Officer, dependent upon the outcome of the report of the
Tehsildar, which is impugned in the present petition, the petitioner is
at liberty to raise the challenge.
Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 2/2
Checking your session…