Allowed

Machindra Rambhaji Sabde v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2012WP/2317/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an agriculturist, filed a writ petition seeking directions to respondent authorities to consider his representations for the return of leased agricultural land. The Court directed respondents to decide on representations within six months and disposed of related civil applications.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider and decide representations on land return within six months. Rule made absolutely and no costs.

Machindra Rambhaji Sabde Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp2317.06

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2317 OF 2006

¶4

Machindra s/o Rambhaji Sabde,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Jalgaon, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶7

2. The Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶8

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, At post and Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar.

¶9

4. The Tahsildar, Rahata, Tq. Rahata Dist.Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &

¶14

 S.S. SHINDE, JJ.

¶15

 DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2012

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT : [ R.M. BORDE, J.]

¶17

.The petitioner is an agriculturist, whose

¶18

2 wp2317.06

¶19

land has been taken on lease by Changdeo Sugar

¶20

Mills, Puntamba, which has been subsequently
transferred to State Farming Corporation. The
Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy
decision to return land to the original lessors
which are in possession of the Maharashtra State

¶21

Farming Corporation. The petitioner has made
representation to the respondents for return of

¶22

land, in view of the policy decision of the
Government, on 19th November, 2005. The same has

¶23

not yet been attended by respondents and no
decision is communicated. The petitioner is

¶24

seeking direction to the respondent authorities to
consider the representations tendered by the
petitioner for return of the agricultural land,
expeditiously.

¶25

2.Considering the contentions raised in the

¶26

petition, we deem it appropriate to dispose of

¶27

this petition with directions to respondent Nos. 2
to 4 to consider and decide the representations

¶28

tendered by the petitioner on 19th November, 2005

¶29

3 wp2317.06

¶30

and 20th April, 2012 in the light of judgment of

¶31

this Court in Writ Petition No.2978 of 2003
decided on 23rd September, 2005, which has been
confirmed by the Apex Court, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within period of six months
from today. Rule made absolutely accordingly. No
costs.

¶32

3. Pending civil application, if any, does

¶33

not survive, hence same stands disposed of.

¶34

sd/- sd/-
[S.S. SHINDE, J.] [ R.M. BORDE, J.]

¶35

sut/OCT12

Machindra Rambhaji Sabde v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machindra Rambhaji Sabde 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarafraj Alam Sikandar Alam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gangadhar Bhimrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarakk Mandal Shiradhon Dist Nanded through Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramkhishan Sahebrao Jadhav, Died Thr. L.Rs. Shantikala Ramkishan Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Suman Supadu Pachpande and Ors. Vs the Union of India Minister of Consumer Affairs New Delhi and Ors.

Ram Eknath Sarode Vs the State of Mah and Anr.