Allowed

Vasant Limbaji Kare v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2011WP/8849/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, on the ground of delay. The High Court quashed the rejection order, holding that the Act does not mandate a strict 30-day limitation and directing the authority to decide the application on merits after considering reasons f

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting the application was quashed; authority directed to decide the application on merits after affording a hearing to all parties.

Vasant Limbaji Kare Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶2

BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8849 OF 2011.

¶5

Vasant S/o Limbaji Kare,
Age 43 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Vasangaon, Tq. &
Dist.Latur.

¶6

... Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Maharahstra State, Mantralaya,
Bombay.

¶9

2. Settlement Commissioner and
Director of Land Record,
Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶10

3. Deputy Director of Land
Records, Aurangabad Region,
Aurangabad.

¶11

4. The Superintendent of Land
Records, Latur, Dist.Latur.
5. The Taluka Inspector of Land
Records, Renapur, Tal.
Renapur, Dist.Latur. ... Respondents.

¶12

Mr.S.P.Urgunde, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the
State.

¶13

2 W.P.No.8849/11

¶14

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶15

 Date : 24.11.2011.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

1.Heard.

¶18

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

¶19

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶20

3.Mr.Urgunde, learned counsel submits
that the petitioner had moved U/s 35 of the
BombayPreventionofFragmentationand

¶21

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 before the
Deputy Director of Land Records,Aurangabad for
correction of the record in respect of S.Nos.51
and 52 corresponding G.Nos.152 to 154. The said
application is rejected only on the ground that
it is not filed within 30 days. The learned
counsel submits that Section 35 does not lay down
any period of limitation and the Deputy Director
has every authority to entertain the application

¶22

3 W.P.No.8849/11

¶23

on merits. Moreover, no reasons are given by the
authority while rejecting the said application.
The learned counsel further contends that
initially the Deputy Director of Land Records was
satisfied with the reasons given for the delay
and so had referred the said application for
measurement to the S.L.R. The learned counsel
contends that this has not been taken into
consideration.

¶24

4.Mr.K.B.Choudhari, learned Addl. Govt.
Pleader supports the order and contends that no
reasons are stated for such an inordinate delay.
The said application is rightly rejected. The
S.L.R. has opined the same thing.

¶25

5.The petitioner has tried to give
reasons for filing the application late. The
authority would consider the said application
along with the reasons mentioned for filing the
application subsequently and at late stage. If
there is some error committed while forming guts
in the Consolidation Scheme and land of no other
party or no other land holder is being reduced

¶26

4 W.P.No.8849/11

¶27

then there is no impediment for the authority to
make correction as per the actual area.

¶28

6.In light of the above, the impugned
order is quashed and set aside. The authority
after giving opportunity of hearing to all the
necessary parties, shall decide the application
of the petitioner including ground of delay on
its own merits.

¶29

7.Rule is accordingly made absolute.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶31

asp/office/wp884911

¶32

5 W.P.No.8849/11

Vasant Limbaji Kare v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Limbaji Kare v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukminibai Vitthal Dikale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chandni Begum Shah Hussain Khan Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Chamelibai Ktukaram Patil and Anr. Vs Maru Rupa Koli and Ors.

Kaushalyabai Murlidhar Deopura Vs Tejas Murlidhar Deopura

Abdul Khalid Abdul Razzak Deshmukh and Ors. Vs Late Abdul Halim Abdul Rahman Deshmukh, Died Thr. L.Rs. Shakkri Abdul Halim Deshmukh and Ors.

M/S Ambarwadikar and Co. Engineers and Contactor Aurangabad Vs Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Chennai and Anr.