Dismissed
Britto Charles and 33 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.
Bombay HCWP/1577/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.…
What the court decided
AI extract
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.1577 OF 2006
Britto Charles & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents.
Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. Pradip Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. A.K. Abhyankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Jain and Anirudha Joshi i/b. Mr. Rajesh Shukla for Respondent No.5. Mr. D. H. Mehta with Ms.Deepa Chavan i/b. Mr. Pankaj Kansara for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
December 7, 2006 .
P.C.
At the hearing of the Petition, Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners has sought the permission of the Court to withdraw the petition since an alternate remedy of a revision before the State Government is available under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that in the event that the
revision is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the revisional authority may be directed to dispose of the Revision
2
Application on merits without having regard to the bar of limitation. The prayer is not opposed. In the circumstances, the following order is passed :
-(i) The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn since the Petitioners seek to avail of the remedy of a revision before the State Government under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966;
-(ii) In the event that the Petitioners file a revision application within a period of four weeks, the revisional authority shall hear and dispose of the revision on merits without having regard to the bar of limitation;
-(iii) The revisional authority shall dispose of the Revision Application on or before 31st March 2007. Until 31st March 2007 the ad-interim order dated 28th June 2006 as modified by the Division Bench on 10th August 2006 in Appeal 545 of 2006 arising out of Writ Petition 1577 of 2006 shall continue to remain in operation. In the event that the hearing of the Revision Application is not completed on or before 31st March 2007, the Petitioners will
3
be at liberty to renew the application before the revisional authority
for extension of the interim order;
(iv) All the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that all the allegations against the Revenue Minister are withdrawn;
(v) It is clarified that the interim relief operates in respect of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and shall not be construed to affect the rights of development, if any, of the parties in respect of the remaining portion of the land.
The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to
costs.
Britto Charles & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court