Allowed

Abdul Rashid A.R. Yusuf and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 43 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2006WP/2103/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to withdraw a Writ Petition to avail a revision remedy under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court allowed withdrawal and directed the revisional authority to decide on merits without limitation bar.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; revisional authority directed to hear and dispose of revision on merits within four weeks, ignoring limitation bar.

Abdul Rashid A.R. Yusuf and Anr. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2103 OF 2006

¶4

Abdul Rashid Abdul Rehman Yusuf & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioners.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Sharma and Mr. S. P. Nagvekar for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.K. Abhyankar with Mr. Anirudha Joshi & Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b. Rajesh Shukla for Respondent No.5.

¶9

Mr. D. H. Mehta with Ms. Deepa Chavan and Mr. Pankaj Kansara for Respondent No.6.

¶10

Mrs. A.R. Joshi for Respondent No.7.

¶11

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

¶12

December 7, 2006 .

¶13

P.C.

¶14

At the hearing of the Petition, Counsel appearing on

¶15

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

¶16

revision is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the revisional authority may be directed to dispose of the Revision

¶17

¶18

Application on merits without having regard to the bar of limitation. The prayer is not opposed. In the circumstances, the following order is passed :

¶19

-(i) The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn since the Petitioners seek to avail of the remedy of a revision before the State Government under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966;

¶20

-(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;

¶21

-(iii) The revisional authority shall dispose of the Revision Application on or before 31^st March 2007.

¶22

(iv) All the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states

¶23

that all the allegations against the Revenue Minister are withdrawn;

¶24

¶25

The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to

¶26

costs.

Abdul Rashid A.R. Yusuf and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 43 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rashid A.R. Yusuf and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 43 Ors.

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

M/S. Maya Developers Vs Shyamsunder Jagdishprasad Sharma and 17 Ors.

Pankesh Diwanchand Chugasrani Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr.

Shri Rameshwar Laxmandas Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

M/S. Universal Enterprises. Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Britto Charles and 33 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Adbul Rashid Abdul Rehman Yusuf and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Abdul Rashid Abdul Rehman Yusuf (Applicant)