ANIL BABURAO ACHAREKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR AND ORS

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO.8527 OF 2026


Anil Baburao Acharekar                       …. Petitioner.

         Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others              …. Respondents.


Mr. Sanjiv Sawant i/b Mr. Milind Shewale for the Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. G.P. with Ms. Leena Patil ‘B’ Panel
Counsel for Respondent-State.

                     CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
                             GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

                     DATE       : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :


1.       The Petitioner is an agriculturist. On 24 th December, 2015, the

Petitioner entered into an Agreement for Sale with Respondent No.5-

Trust for purchase of a plot of land bearing Survey No.33, Gut No.7/1,

admeasuring 0-95-2, situated at Mauje Ekdara, Taluka Murud, District

Raigad (“the property”). Since the property belongs to Respondent

No.5-Trust, an application bearing No. Jt.CC (MS) II/255/2016 came to

be filed under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,

1950, seeking permission of the Charity Commissioner for sale of the

                                    1/4
WP-8527-2026.doc                                                       bdp
said property in favour of the Petitioner.



2.      On 17th December, 2018, the Joint Charity Commissioner granted

permission for the proposed sale and directed Respondent No.5 to

complete the transaction within six months from the date of the said

order. By an order dated 29th June, 2019, this time was subsequently

extended by another 6 months.



3.      On 24th January, 2019, the Petitioner made an application to

Respondent No.1 seeking the requisite permission for execution of the

conveyance under Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,

1966. From 2019 onwards, the Petitioner repeatedly followed up with

the concerned authorities for a decision on his application. It appears that

the Petitioner’s application was scrutinized by Respondent Nos.1 and 4.

Respondent No.3, by its letter dated 3 rd January, 2023, also requested

Respondent No.1 to take necessary steps in accordance with the

prevailing Rules and Regulations of the State Government. Despite

repeated reminders, the Petitioner’s application has not been decided till

date.



4.      Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the

prolonged inaction on the part of Respondent No.1 is unreasonable,
                                    2/4
WP-8527-2026.doc                                                          bdp
particularly when the Joint Charity Commissioner has already granted

permission for the sale of the property and the Petitioner has expressed

his willingness to comply with all applicable terms and conditions

governing the proposed conveyance. The continued inaction of

Respondent No.1 is causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner and

warrants a direction for expeditious consideration of the application.



5.      Ms. Solunke, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, does not dispute the factual position and

submits that Respondent No.1 shall consider the Petitioner’s application

in accordance with law.



6.      Having perused the record, we do not find any justification on the

part of Respondent No.1 for delaying the decision on the Petitioner’s

application which is pending since 2019, particularly when the Joint

Charity Commissioner has already granted permission for sale of the

property. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a) which

reads as under:

           “a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
           Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
           other appropriate Writ, by directing the Respondent No.1
           to consider the application made by the Petitioner seeking
           permission for the sale and conveyance of the property by
           the Respondent No.5 to the Petitioner.”
                                     3/4
WP-8527-2026.doc                                                         bdp
                      7.      We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of

                      the Petitioner’s application. The Petitioner is at liberty to place on record

                      any additional documents or material in support of the application, if so

                      advised. Respondent No.1 shall decide the Petitioner’s application in

                      accordance with the applicable law and take a decision within 2 months

                      of this order.




                      [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]                         [ SUMAN SHYAM, J. ]


BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT

Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH PANDIT
Date: 2026.09.18
17:41:17 +0530




                                                          4/4
                      WP-8527-2026.doc                                                           bdp