- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3152/1999 Vasant Balwantrao Chavan, aged 42 yrs., occu.agril., r/o at and post Naigaon (Bazar) Tq.Biloli Dist.Nanded. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3] The Advocate General of Maharashtra, High Court Building Complex, High Court of Bombay, Bombay. ...Respondents... ..... Shri U.R. Awati, Advocate h/f Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhary, Additional G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 2. WP dismissed as against res.no.3 as per Additional Registrar’s order dated - 2 - 4.10.1999. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 12.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner prays for declaration that Section 4(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is arbitrary and further prays for a direction to the respondents to implement its decision regarding creation and constitution of Naigaon (Bazar) and Ardhapur Talukas in Nanded District. 3] In so far as challenge to Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that the powers to create new Taluka is absolute and, therefore, can be exercised arbitrarily. It is, therefore, submitted that the said provision suffers from vice of arbitrariness and requires to be struck down being un-Constitutional. 4] Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, provides for the condition of previous publication prior to notification, which is required to be issued u/s 4 of the said Code. As such it will be seen that there is - 3 - an inbuilt safeguard under the said provisions. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in so far as the contention regarding validity of the said section is concerned. 5] In so far as challenge on merits is concerned, creation of Talukas is purely a policy matter and unless the power is found to be exercised arbitrarily, no interference would be warranted. No case is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c128101