CHANDRAMA TRIBHUVAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Chopda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saluja, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Gehani, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Gehani has not filed his appearance. He undertakes to file appearance within a period of one week.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition on account of inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of the said amount from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by way of land revenue. It appears that later on a cheque of the amount due to the applicant was issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the same was lying with the Tahsildar working under the Collector-respondent No. 2.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 29th July, 2011, this Court (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar and R.Y. Ganoo, JJ.) had made the following observations at para 1:--