Disposed

Janakibai Mhatre Widow of Late Janu Narayan Mhatre v. Govt. of Mah.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2007WP/1580/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding land occupancy and grass cutting rights, the High Court of Bombay directed the State Government to hear and decide the petitioners' representations including a specific decision. The Court also permitted the intervenor to be heard on their claim of right of way.

What did the court decide?

Judgment directed the State Government to hear the Petitioners' last representation dated 30.12.2003 and the Intervenor on the right of way claim.

Janakibai Mhatre Widow of Late Janu Narayan Mhatre Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF1991
 ALONGWITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1863 OF 2002

¶3

 Janakibai Mhatre widow of
 Late Janu Narayan Mhatre
 alias (Patil) & Ors. ..Petitioners.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

 Government of Maharashtra
 & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.R.A.Jahagirdar i/b.Mr.G.G.Bhatt for the
 Petitioners.

¶7

 Mr.S.R.Nangolkar, A.G.P. for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 8TH JANUARY, 2007

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

 By this petition, the Petitioners have sought an
 order directing the Respondents to commence, proceed
 with and conclude the necessary enquiry and
 proceedings and to grant the Petitioners ownership
 or permanent occupancy or lease in respect of the
 land which is the subject matter of the petition.

¶11

 2. The Petitioners have also sought a declaration
 declaring as illegal, the decisions, orders and
 directions of the Respondents from occupying and
 granting yearly grass cutting rights in respect of
 the said land The Petitioners also sought certain

¶12

:2:

¶13

 other consequential reliefs.

¶14

 3. The Petitioners’ contention is that they have
 been in occupation of the said land since 1948 and,
 are entitled inter-alia, under the policy of the
 Government, to have their occupancy regularised.

¶15

 4. On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5, one
 Murlidhar Laxman Pawar, Naib Tahsildar in the office
 of the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, has
 filed an affidavit. He is also present in the
 Court. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the
 State Government has no objection to hear and decide
 the claim of the Petitioners in accordance with the
 law and also under the Maharashtra Land Rules, 1971,
 framed thereunder.

¶16

 5. In view of the said affidavit, it is not
 necessary to consider the merits of the petition.

¶17

 6. One Vivekanand Education Society, has filed
 Civil Application No.1863 of 2002 seeking to
 intervene in the above petition. The Applicants
 have sought to intervene in this matter in view of
 the alleged right of way in respect of the property
 which is the subject matter of the petition. The

¶18

:3:

¶19

 Applicants does not claim any other right in respect
 of the said land nor does the Applicant oppose any
 orders that may be passed. The Applicants fairly
 state that they are not concerned with the disputes
 between the Petitioners and the Respondents.

¶20

 7. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed
 of as follows :

¶21

 i) Respondent No.1 shall hear and decide the the
 representations of the Petitioners, including
 the last representation dated 30.12.2003, in
 accordance with law.

¶22

 ii) The Applicant Vivekanand Education Society,
 shall also be heard by the State Government,
 however, only in respect of their alleged
 right of way over the suit property.

¶23

 iii) The status-quo shall continue till the
 passing of the order by the State Government
 and for a period of twelve weeks after a copy
 of the order is served on the Petitioners, if

¶24

 the same is adverse to the Petitioners.

¶25

 iv) The rule is accordingly made absolute. The

¶26

:4:

¶27

 Civil Application and the Writ Petition are

¶28

 disposed of accordingly.

Janakibai Mhatre Widow of Late Janu Narayan Mhatre v. Govt. of Mah.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janakibai Mhatre Widow of Late Janu Narayan Mhatre v. Govt. of Mah.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharamdas v Sanghavi Vs Lalitkumar v Sanghavi and 2 Ors.

Chandu Alias Chander Chellaram Chhabria and 2 Ors. Vs Khushal Chellaram Chhabria and 10 Ors.

mr chandu alias chander chellaram chhabria and Ors. Vs mr khushal c. chhabria and Ors.

Abdul Rashid Bhola Gujar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jankibai Mhatre and Ors. Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Ashok Deshmukh and Ors. Vs Sandesh Namdeo Randive and Ors.