Bombay High Court | Creating Additional Tahsildar Office Does Not Constitute New Revenue Area | Action Valid Under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade, delivered its judgment on September 2, 2025, dismissing a petition challenging the establishment of an Additional Tahsildar office at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. The Bench held that the Government Resolution dated July 18, 2023, and subsequent notification dated August 17, 2023, were lawful exercises of power under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court stated that the petitioners’ claim regarding violation of Section 4 of the Code was misconceived, as the impugned action did not amount to creation of a new revenue area. The Court concluded that no arbitrariness or illegality was demonstrated and directed that the Public Interest Litigation stands dismissed.
The matter originated from a challenge raised against a Government Resolution issued on July 18, 2023, by the State of Maharashtra. Through the Resolution, the State sanctioned the appointment of an Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka Nilanga, District Latur, and established an independent office for the same. The Resolution also sanctioned the creation of posts, including one Additional Tahsildar and one Clerk-cum-Typist, and assigned 63 villages to fall under the jurisdiction of the newly created office, while 99 villages remained under the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar at Nilanga.
The petitioners contended that this Government Resolution was issued in violation of Section 4(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. They argued that the provision required issuance of a notification subject to previous publication, ensuring compliance with Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, so that affected villagers could raise objections. According to the petitioners, failure to follow this procedure rendered the Resolution arbitrary and illegal. They relied on precedents, particularly Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2013 (Dr. Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others) and Public Interest Litigation No. 114 of 2024 (Santosh Suresh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and others).
On behalf of the State and respondent authorities, it was submitted that Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was inapplicable since no new revenue area was created. Instead, Sections 7 and 13 of the Code governed the matter, as they pertain to appointment and powers of Revenue Officers, including Additional Tahsildars. It was pointed out that a notification dated August 17, 2023, was issued under Section 13(3) of the Code, empowering the Additional Tahsildar, Kasar Shirsi, to exercise the same powers and duties as the Tahsildar, Nilanga, for the 63 villages assigned. The respondents argued that this notification validated the Resolution and distinguished the facts from the cases relied upon by the petitioners.
Respondents further submitted that the decision was based on administrative convenience due to population growth and increased workload at Nilanga Tehsil. They contended that the Additional Tahsildar office was created to improve efficiency and convenience for the local population. Gram Panchayat representatives and a registered Sanstha from Kasar Shirsi also supported the Resolution, asserting that the office’s establishment served the public interest of surrounding villages.
The Court noted that prior to the Resolution, the State had undertaken inquiries into the administrative feasibility of the proposed office. Following a request from a Member of Legislative Assembly, the District Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an inquiry. A detailed report was prepared, covering geographical area, population, revenue circles, and talathis. Based on this report, the Collector recommended establishment of the office, leading to the issuance of the Resolution and subsequent notification.
The petitioners persisted that the Resolution was politically motivated and inconvenienced villagers by shifting administrative access to Kasar Shirsi. They stated that lack of previous publication deprived villagers of the opportunity to raise objections. The State and respondents countered this claim, reiterating that the power exercised was under Sections 7 and 13, not Section 4, making previous publication irrelevant.
The Bench examined Sections 4, 7, and 13 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in detail. Section 4 pertains to constitution and alteration of revenue areas, including districts, sub-divisions, talukas, and villages. Section 4(4) mandates previous publication of notifications altering such areas and application of Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. The Court recorded: “It is to be understood that the said elaborate requirement pertains to constituting, or re-constituting by altering the limits of revenue areas, either by amalgamation of division or even abolishing revenue areas by exercising power under section 4 of the MLR Code.”
The Court contrasted this with Section 7, which authorizes the State to appoint Collectors, Tahsildars, and Additional Tahsildars, and Section 13, which specifies the powers and duties of Revenue Officers, including Additional Tahsildars. The Bench observed: “Additional Tahsildars can be appointed for assisting the Tahsildars and such appointments can be made by the State Government as per the expediency of the situation. It is to be kept in mind that appointments of Additional Tahsildars to assist the Tahsildars, is for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of administration and obviously, it does not amount to creating a new revenue area.”
The Court stated that the Resolution merely created an office of the Additional Tahsildar and allocated jurisdiction without altering or constituting a revenue area. Referring to the notification dated August 17, 2023, the Court recorded: “By the said notification, it was directed that Additional Tahsildar of Kasar Shirsi, Taluka - Nilanga, District – Latur, shall exercise powers and discharge all duties and functions conferred upon the Tahsildar Nilanga, Taluka - Nilanga, District - Latur under the provisions of the MLR Code.”
On the petitioners’ reliance on precedents, the Court distinguished the cited judgments. Regarding the case of Dr. Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar, it stated: “In the said case, the State had issued a notification specifically exercising powers under section 4 of the MLR Code, proposing to constitute a separate sub-division for two talukas and notifying the location of headquarter of division at one particular taluka. It is in the backdrop of such a controversy pertaining to constitution or carving out of a specific revenue area that the Division Bench of this Court, in the said case, applied section 4(4) of the MLR Code.”
Similarly, in reference to Santosh Suresh Patil, the Court noted: “There is no reference to any notification issued under section 13(3) of the MLR Code and reference is only made to a Government resolution. Hence, the said judgment can also not come to the aid of the petitioners herein.”
On allegations of political motivation, the Court reviewed the communications relied upon by the petitioners and found no irregularity. It recorded: “A proper appreciation of the same only shows that when a request was made by a Member of Legislative Assembly, for considering appointment of office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka - Nilanga, the District Collector directed Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a report. The Sub Divisional Officer indeed prepared a report... It is after such a report was submitted that the District Collector sent a recommendation to the State, for taking appropriate action in the matter.”
The Court stated that the decision was a lawful exercise of statutory power under Sections 7 and 13, made to enhance administrative efficiency. The Bench recorded: “This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not to supplant its wisdom on such matters of administration, which is within the domain of the Executive. Interference would have been warranted if there was defective exercise of statutory power or if arbitrariness was writ large in the impugned action of the State.”
The Court concluded that no such arbitrariness or illegality had been demonstrated.
The Division Bench issued its final order dismissing the petition. It recorded: “Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.” The Bench further stated: “Rule is discharged.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Kunal Kale and Mr. Vikas Matkar i/b Mr. Vishwajeet Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP; Mr. Sanjeeva Deshpande, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Swapnil Patunkar, Mr. Swapnil Joshi, Ms. Sakshi Mule, Mr. Ojas Deshpande i/b J.P. Legal Associates; Mr. M.D. Swami, Advocate
Case Title: Karmyogi Swargiya Dr. Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:23410-DB
Case Number: PIL (ST.) No. 24738 of 2023
Bench: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade
