Partly allowed

Talewar Khan Sherkhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2012WP/222/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that writ petitions seeking correction in revenue records need not be entertained under Article 226. Instead, the court granted liberty to petitioners to make representations to the Collector for appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to make representation to the Collector within eight weeks; copy disposed of.

Talewar Khan Sherkhan and Anr. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp222.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2011

¶5

Talewar Khan s/o Sherkhan

¶6

& another .. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

& others

¶10

.. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior counsel instructed by Mr. S.M. Murkute, advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, AGP for the State.

¶13

Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, advocate for interveners.

¶14

=====

¶15

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 23^rd OCTOBER, 2012.

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

Grievance made in the petition in respect of making correction in revenue record need not be entertained by High Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

The ends of justice would be met if petitioners are granted liberty to make comprehensive representation alongwith supporting documents to the Collector making request for issuance of direction to the subordinate revenue officials for effecting appropriate corrections in the revenue record. If petitioners tender representation to the Collector within a period of eight weeks

¶19

wp222.11

¶20

¶21

from today, the Collector, after extending an opportunity of hearing to petitioners, interveners as well as contesting respondents, shall proceed to pass appropriate order on the representation. It is made clear that we have not gone into merits of the controversy involved in the matter and it would be for the Collector to pass appropriate orders. The Collector shall take decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from today. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed

¶23

of.

¶24

( S. S. SHINDE ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

dyb

wp222.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶29

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12352 OF 2012 IN

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2011

¶31

Ilahi Khan s/o Yunus Khan

¶32

.. APPLICANT

¶33

VERSUS

¶34

Talewar Khan s/o Sher Khan & others

¶35

.. RESPONDENTS

¶36

Mr. A.A.Mukhedkar, advocate for applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, AGP for the State.

¶37

Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Counsel instructed by Mr. Murkute, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶38

=====

¶39

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 23^rd OCTOBER, 2012.

¶40

PER COURT :

¶41

This is an application seeking intervention in the matter by the

¶42

applicant. Considering the contentions raised in the application, application is allowed. Applicant is permitted to intervene in the matter. Civil application

¶43

stands disposed of.

¶44

( S. S. SHINDE ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶45

dyb

Talewar Khan Sherkhan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talewar Khan Sherkhan and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Datta Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Geeta Sudhakar Gundala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manikrao Tulshiram Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Baburao Bankatrao Somvanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mujjamilpasha Haidarsab Kamthane Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Kisan Bari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.