Deepika Arvind Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2005WP/231/2005

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

HIGH COURT OF

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 O. O. C. J.

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.231 OF 2005

¶5

 Deepika Arvind Pathak ..Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

 Ms.Shakuntala Mudbidri for the Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶10

 Mr.N.M.Shah with Mr.D.H.Mehta for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶12

 7th March, 2005.

¶13

Deepika Arvind Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶17

 intestate on 28th April, 1999 leaving behind
 moveable and immovable properties including a plot
 of land bearing CTS No.260, Plot No.17, Swastik
 Society, North South Road No.2, Juhu Scheme Vile
 Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. The Petitioner has
 filed a suit for administration (Suit 4194 of 2000)
 in this Court. In a Notice of Motion therein
 (Notice of Motion 3005 of 2000) an interim order
 was passed by a learned Single Judge on 15th
 December, 2000. On 6th February, 2001 the name of
 the Second Respondent was mutated in the property
 register in respect of the plot of land in question
 as the sole heir of the deceased. The Petitioner

¶18

 filed an application before the City Survey
 officer, Land Records praying for the insertion of
 her name as one of the legal representatives of the
 deceased. The Petitioner has stated that she was

¶20

 appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land
 Revenue Code, 1966 before the Superintendent of
 Land Records. The appellate authority allowed the
 appeal on 30th April, 2003 and directed the City

¶23

 the deceased. Accordingly, the name of the
 Petitioner was insertedin the property register
 card by mutation entry 234 on 26th May, 2003. The
 Second Respondent thereupon filed a revision on 8th
 July, 2003 and after a lapse of 17 months, on 15th
 October, 2004 an application for the grant of
 interim stay came to be filed. The Petitioner
 filed a reply opposing the grant of interim relief.
 The impugned order came to be passed on 31st
 December, 2004 by the Deputy Director of Land
 Records staying the order of the Superintendent on
 the ground that the administration suit is pending
 in this Court and that it was desirable that no
 legal complication in respect of the suit property
 should arise.

¶24

 3. When this petition came up for admission,
 notice was issued to the Second Respondent and in
 the meantime, ad interim stay was granted in terms
 of prayer clause (c) of the Petition of the order
 passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records. The
 Second Respondent has appeared in response to the
 notice. At this stage, since the revision is

¶26

 pending before the Deputy Director of Land Records,
 it is neither appropriate nor proper for the Court
 to consider the merits of the respective cases of
 the parties in these proceedings. Any observations
 of this Court would only affect the respective
 contentions of the parties before the authority
 below. In the circumstances, this Petition is
 disposed of by directing the Deputy Director of
 Land Records to dispose of the revision application
 within a period of two months from the date on
 which parties appear before him for directions.
 All the rights and contentions of the parties are
 kept open. In the meantime, the ad interim order
 dated 10th February, 2005 shall continue to operate
 until the revision application is disposed of. The
 parties are agreed that they shall maintain the
 status quo. The parties shall appear before the
 revisional authority on 21st March, 2005 for
 directions in regard to the early disposal of the
 proceedings. The Petition is accordingly disposed

Deepika Arvind Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Tata Employees Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Dr Saurabh Gpel and Ors.

Sarabheet J. Singh Vs Sandoz (India) Ltd.

Ferzin Kurush Patel v/S Vs Kurish Jimmy Patel

Ramchandra Sadashiv Shinde Vs M/S. Jaslok Hospital and Research Center and Ors.

Deepika Arvind Pathak v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Tata Employees Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Dr Saurabh Gpel and Ors.

Sarabheet J. Singh Vs Sandoz (India) Ltd.

Ferzin Kurush Patel v/S Vs Kurish Jimmy Patel

Ramchandra Sadashiv Shinde Vs M/S. Jaslok Hospital and Research Center and Ors.

M/S. Ganesh Enterprises Vs the Liquidator the Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Jospeh E. Silva Vs Mumbai Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai