Dismissed

Sunil Lnamdev Mali and Ors. v. State Ofl Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2013APPLN/590/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad heard a Criminal Application challenging an order regarding tenancy rights valuation. The respondent original complainant was absent. The matter was pending before appropriate authority regarding the declaration of tenant rights and validity of sale deeds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 22.06.2010 recorded in M.A. No.246 of 2010 is quashed and set aside.

Sunil Lnamdev Mali and Ors. Vs State Ofl Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

590-11

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2011

¶6

SUNIL LNAMDEV MALI AND ORS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OFL MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶9

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kore Ganesh J. APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. K. G. Patil.

¶10

***

¶11

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL AND

¶12

A.I.S. CHEEMA,JJ. DATED: 12th SEPTEMBER,2013

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1. Heard.

¶15

2. Inspite of service, Respondent No.2 - original complainant is absent.

¶16

3.The original complainant feels that
inspite of there being a declaration of
tenancy rights, the property land Gat No.
222 was illegally sold away by sale deed
No.720/81, 388 of 1994, 390 of 1994, 387 of
1994 and 389 of 1994. He also feels that

¶17

590-11

¶18

-:(2):-

¶19

the sale deeds were without prior
permission of learned Collector. Hence,
they are to be treated as invalid. The
Applicant Sunil, Mukind, Namdeo and
Chandrakant are purchasers of the property
by virtue of sale deed dated 21st March,
1994 allegedly executed by accused Nos.5
and 6 coordinated by original accused Nos.
11 and 23.

¶20

4.The controversy in respect of rights
of original complainant to get the
transaction declared as null and void is
still pending before appropriate authority.
Original complainant is not as yet declared
as a tenant or a protected tenant. At this
stage of the matter, it cannot be said that
there was an inherent propensity on the
part of the applicant as accused to
purchase the property. Prosecution vide
F.I.R. No.15 of 2010 dated 6th July, 2010
pursuant to order dated 22nd June, 2010
recorded in M.A. No.246 of 2010 by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad is

¶21

590-11

¶22

-:(3):-

¶23

quashed and set aside. Criminal

¶24

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.]
Dt.12/09/2013
ans/590-11

Sunil Lnamdev Mali and Ors. v. State Ofl Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Lnamdev Mali and Ors. v. State Ofl Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Pradeep Dudhmal Bhavre Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mohan Premnath Kothimbire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohan Premnath Kothimbire Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baban Janardhan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nilkanth Tukaram Dhotre Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Vasant Dattatraya Bhatlawande and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.