Disposed

Smt. Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani, through Prakash K. Rochlani v. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012WP/8456/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a 1971 conveyance deed via writ petition. Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction for quashing the deed but disposed of the petition by directing authorities to consider all representations comprehensively within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to authorities to consider representations within two weeks and decide within four weeks.

Smt. Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani, through Prakash K… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP.8456.2012.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8456 OF 2012

¶4

Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani :- Petitioner versus The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Ors. :- Respondents

¶5

Mr. J. S. Chandnani, for the Petitioner. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP, for Respondent State.

¶6

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶7

DATED:-OCTOBER 5, 2012

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

Diverse reliefs have been claimed in this Petition. The

¶10

substance of reliefs, as has been rightly pointed out by the Learned AGP, is to quash and set aside the conveyance deed dated 15^th June, 1971, in respect of the subject plot. We fail to understand as to how this relief can be taken forward in Writ Jurisdiction.

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the other relief claimed by the Petitioner is on the basis of the inaction of the Authorities in not deciding the representations made by the

Page 1 of 2

J.V.Salunke,PA

WP.8456.2012.doc

Petitioner on 20^th July, 2012, 25^th July, 2012 and also further representations.

¶16

The Petitioner intends to make further representation to bring on record subsequent events. If that is the grievance, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Petition with direction to the concerned Authorities to consider the representations made by the Petitioner from time to time. The Authority may also take into account the grievance of the Petitioner, made in this Petition and the further representation which the Petitioner intends to file, as a comprehensive representation, within two weeks from today. The Authority shall take decision as may be warranted within four weeks from filing of the proposed comprehensive representation by the Petitioner.

¶17

We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of contentions in the Petition, either way. The Authority shall consider all aspects of the matter in accordance with law. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

J.V.Salunke,PA

Smt. Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani, through Prakash K. Rochlani v. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani, through Prakash K. Rochlani v. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept 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

Shri. Sunil Kumar Bavdhankar Vs Shri. Kashinath Vitthal Sodmise and Ors.

Anil Ganpatrao Gujar Vs Food Corporation of India, through General Manager and Ors.

Aadhar Mahila Vikas Sanstha Vs All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) and Ors.

Kolhapur (Ujlaiwadi) Vimantal Prakalp Grast Shetkari Mandal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kishor Madhukarrao Kende and Anr. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

Kolhapur (Ujlaiwadi) Vimantal Prakalp Grast Shetkari Mandal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.