Disposed

Keshav Baburao Kanade (Decd.)by Lrs. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2005WP/2040/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition directed against revenue findings in R.T.S proceedings was not pressed by counsel. Liberty granted to institute appropriate proceedings to establish property rights.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to institute appropriate proceedings for establishing rights in disputed property. Impugned orders subject to outcome of such proceedings.

Keshav Baburao Kanade (Decd.)by Lrs. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2040 OF 2004

¶4

Shri Keshav Baburao Kanade,
since deceased through L.Rs
1A.Shri Narayan Keshav
Kanade & Ors.

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

vs

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.Respondents

¶8

Mr Dilip Bodake, for the petitioners.
Mr A.H.Palekar, AGP, for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

¶10

DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2005.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2.This petition is directed against the
concurrent findings recorded by the revenue
authorities in the R.T.S proceedings. Mr Bodake,
learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,
on instructions, submits that he has instructions not
to press this petition and the petitioners would be

¶14

satisfied if they are given liberty to adopt
appropriate proceedings to establish their rights in
the property in dispute and if they ultimately
succeed, they may be given further liberty to

¶15

:2:

¶16

approach the revenue authorities for effecting
necessary changes in the revenue record. Mr Palekar,
learned AGP has no objection for granting such
liberty.

¶17

3.Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
AGP, for the respondents, I am satisfied that the
following order will meet the ends of justice:

¶18

(i) Liberty to the petitioners to institute
appropriate proceedings for establishing their rights
in the property in dispute.

¶19

(ii) It is needless to state that the orders impugned
in the writ petition would be subject to outcome of
the proceedings that would be instituted by the
petitioners for determining their rights in the
property in dispute. It is open for the petitioners
to approach the revenue authority as and when they
succeed in those proceedings. While granting the
liberty I shall not be understood to have expressed

¶20

any opinion on merits of the case. If the
proceedings are initiated by the petitioners for
determining of their rights, same may be considered
in accordance with law. The writ petition is

¶21

:3:

¶22

accordingly disposed as not pressed.
(iii) All contentions are left open.

¶23

(D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Keshav Baburao Kanade (Decd.)by Lrs. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Baburao Kanade (Decd.)by Lrs. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Proposed Vishwasrao Narayan Patil S.D.v.S.Mydt. Vs Hanuman Sahakari Doodh v.S.Maryadeet and Ors.

Shri Gopinath Sakharamambre Vs Ratnagiri District Central Co.Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Rahimatbi Ismailsaheb Mujawar Vs Shri Shankar Mahadev Katakdhond and Another

Gangadhar Dagdu Mali Vs Vithal Hari Mali

Dagadu Pandurang Salunkhe Vs Shahaji Bharat Pawar

Shri Balasaheb Shankarrao Salunkhe Vs Shri Kisan Sadashiv Jadhav