TULSHIDAS @ SUNIL VASANT KHADKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46104-DB

                                                                      CRI. WP 948-23 .




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.948 OF 2023

                        TULSHIDAS @ SUNIL VISANT KHADKE
                                    VERSUS
                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                              ….
          Mr. Prasanna N. Kutti, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. S. J. Salgare, A.P.P. for the Respondents-State
                                              ….

                                  CORAM        :   SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                   VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                  Date         :   01/10/2026


          ORDER :


          1.   Heard rival submissions.



          2.   By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to

          respondent No.2, i.e. the District Collector, Jalgaon, to take criminal

          action against the persons who are prima facie involved in the

          commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and

          471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as per the

          enquiry report dated 29/10/2022. The petitioner has also prayed for

          departmental action against the concerned Government officers who

          are responsible for certifying the mutation entries pertaining to


                VS Maind/                                           Page|1
                                                            CRI. WP 948-23 .




Survey Nos.158/12, 158/12/B and 158/12/C, bearing Mutation

Entry Nos.26472, 26473 and 25032, respectively, of village Jalgaon.



3.   The record indicates that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact

that the purchasers of the aforesaid lands were not agriculturists

and therefore, the aforesaid mutation entries were certified without

verifying the said fact. Admittedly, the Tahsildar, Amalner, had

sought guidance from respondent No.2 in respect of the grievance

raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the concerned Circle Officer,

Patonda, vide report dated 02/09/2022 submitted to the Tahsildar,

Amalner, opined that the concerned purchasers of the aforesaid

lands were not agriculturists. It was further observed that without

verifying the said fact, the then Circle Officer had entered the names

of the purchasers in the record of rights of the said lands, contrary

to law. However, thereafter, respondent No.2, vide communication

dated 10/05/2023, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon, to

conduct an enquiry in respect of the aforesaid mutation entries

pertaining to the disputed lands, particularly as to whether the said

lands had been purchased by the concerned purchasers despite they

are not being agriculturists.




      VS Maind/                                          Page|2
                                                            CRI. WP 948-23 .




4.   Pursuant to the said communication, the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Jalgaon, conducted an enquiry in RTS Appeal No.99 of 2023

in respect of the aforesaid mutation entries, wherein notices were

issued to the petitioner as well as the purchasers of the aforesaid

lands. One Shobha Narendra Kabra was also joined in the said

appeal as a third party.



5.   The learned APP has placed on record, along with the affidavit-

in-reply, a copy of the judgment dated 23/01/2024 passed in the

said RTS appeal. On going through the entire judgment, it appears

that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon, considered the

contentions raised by the purchasers as well as the documents

produced by them on record. It is significant to note that the present

petitioner did not argue the matter despite being given an

opportunity to do so.



6.   The said judgment clearly indicates that the purchasers were

having agricultural lands in their names prior to purchasing the

lands in dispute and ultimately, the aforesaid mutation entries were

confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon. Under such

circumstances, it appears that all the contentions raised by the

petitioner in the present petition were considered and rejected in the


      VS Maind/                                          Page|3
                                                         CRI. WP 948-23 .




said judgment. Moreover, it has been specifically held in the said

judgment that the petitioner could not produce any documentary

evidence to establish as to how he was concerned with the disputed

lands. On the contrary, it was found that the said lands were owned

by Purushottam Baksu Khadke, Nilkant Baksu Khadke and Natthu

Baksu Khadke, who had sold the said lands to the respective

purchasers. As such, considering all these materials, no substance

is found in the petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the

petition stands dismissed.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]                [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
            JUDGE                            JUDGE




      VS Maind/                                        Page|4