Disposed

Raakesh S/O. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2008LPA/344/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court summarily dismissed appeals challenging an order dismissing a writ petition and refusing interference in mutation/sale deed entries. The Court held there was no reason to interfere given the appellant filed a separate suit and dismissed civil applications as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Appeals and Civil Applications dismissed summarily/infructuons.

Raakesh S/O. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.344 OF 2007

¶4

 WITH

¶5

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2008

¶6

AND

¶7

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.345 OF 2007
 WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.463 OF 2007

¶8

AND

¶9

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.346 OF 2007
 WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.464 OF 2007

¶10

 Rakesh S/o Rajendrakumar Agarwal .. Appellant.

¶11

 Versus

¶12

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶13

 Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar i/by Mr.S.P. Bunghate for the
 appellant.

¶14

 Mr.K.S. Dewal for respondents No.5 to 11.

¶15

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶16

DATED : 21st January, 2008

¶17

 P.C. :

¶18

 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing

¶19

 for the parties. The challenge in all these appeals
 is to the order dated 24-10-2007 passed by the
 learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
 summarily and declining to interfere with the
 permission granted by the S.D.O. It is not disputed
 that pursuant to the orders impugned in the

¶20

¶21

 petition, sale deed has been executed and the same
 has been registered and mutation entries have been
 recorded in the revenue records. We find no reason
 to interfere in the impugned order, particularly
 when the appellant before us has already filed suit
 in his own capacity in relation to the property in
 question.

¶22

 2. Thus, we dispose of these appeals summarily,

¶23

 however, we observe that the observations made in
 the order is without prejudice to the rights and
 contentions of the parties in the proceedings.

¶24

 3. All the appeals stand disposed of with no
 order as to costs.

¶25

 4. In view of disposal of appeals, nothing

¶26

 further survives in the Civil Applications. All the
 civil applications are dismissed as infructuous with
 no order as to costs.

¶27

 CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

Raakesh S/O. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raakesh S/O. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Mota Mandir Trust and 5 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Dr.Radha N.Dutta and Ors. Vs the Mun.Corpn.of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Liladhar Vasant Chogale Vs Union of India Trhough Indian Institute of Technology

Raakesh S/O. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raakesh S/O. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janmabhoomi Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Vs Maharashtra Hsg. and Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.