Shri. Dhanaji Waman Patil v. the Managing Trustees Mother Education Trust and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2009WP/6672/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Karnataka (Mumbai Bench) disposed of a writ petition challenging a revenue order by not entertaining the petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach revenue authorities after the pending specific performance suit is decided, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach revenue authority after disposal of the pending civil suit.

Shri. Dhanaji Waman Patil Vs the Managing Trustees Mother… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6672 OF 2009

¶4

Dhanaji Waman Patil .. Petitioner. Vs. The Managing Trustees, Mother Education Trust & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶5

.. Respondents.

¶6

Mr.R.B.Parab and Mr.A.J.Almeida for the petitioner. Mrs.Anjali Helekar for respondent no.1.

¶7

CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

This writ petition arises from the orders passed by the revenue authorities in RTS proceedings. By the last order dated 9.6.2009 the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, has directed the Tahsildar, Borivali, to enter the name of respondent-trust in other rights column of 7 x 12 extract in respect of the land in dispute. The impugned direction is based on the agreement of sale dated 22.2.1989, executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-trust. There is no dispute that the impugned order does not disturb the name of petitioner entered in the kabzedar (occupation) column of the 7 X 12 extract. It is equally true and undisputed that though the name of petitioner finds place in the kabzedar

¶11

¶12

column the petitioner is not in possession of the suit land and admittedly, the respondent-trust is in possession thereof. There is no dispute that the respondent-trust has filed a suit bearing regular civil suit No.2830 of 2005 in this court for specific performance of the agreement dated 22.2.1989 and the suit is pending. In the circumstances I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and I am satisfied that liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned revenue authority afresh for effecting necessary changes in the record of rights after the suit is finally disposed of, will meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. It is needless to state that the civil suit will be decided on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the orders impugned in the writ petition. It is made clear that the order impugned in the petition is not disturbed by this order.

¶13

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

Shri. Dhanaji Waman Patil v. the Managing Trustees Mother Education Trust and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Dhanaji Waman Patil v. the Managing Trustees Mother Education Trust 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

Jayashri Vasant Suryavanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayashri Vasant Suryavanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kashimira Rustom Kambata and Rustom Melhi Kambata Vs .......................................

Satnam Singh Layal Vs Harvinder Kaur Layal

Manoj Sheth and Ors. Vs Kooverji Nanji Gala and Ors.

Shri Bhiku Bhau Shelar and Ors. Vs Smt.Parvatibai Krishna Ghorpade and Ors.