Allowed

Shri. Narayan Phula Ghote and Ors. v. the Additional Principal Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2013WP/3478/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the first respondent to decide the petitioners' application for land permission under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, within three months. The petition was disposed of on interim terms without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Director the first respondent to decide the application within three months from the date of service of this order.

Shri. Narayan Phula Ghote and Ors. Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

ash

wp-3478.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3478 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Narayan Phula Ghote & Others. .. Petitioners Vs The Additional Principal Secretary & Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, and Others. .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Vipin Kasle i/by M/s. Ram & Co for the Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 10TH JUNE 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The grievance in the Petition is that the Application under Section 36A

¶11

of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Exhibit-B to the Petition) is still pending.

¶12

The Petitioner Nos.1 to 27 by the said application have sought permission under Section 36A of the said Code of 1966 for sale of the lands described in the said Application to the Writ Petitioner

¶13

Nos.28 and 29. The grievance in the Petition is that the said Application is kept pending for more than one year.

ash

wp-3478.13

Our attention is invited to the Exhibit-C to the Petition

¶18

which is a communication dated 17^th July 2012 issued by the office of the District Collector, Nashik to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik by which a report was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. In the report, it is stated that the Collector had no objection for forwarding the proposal for grant of permission to the State Government. Our attention is invited to the communication dated 24^th July/August 2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Administration) in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik to the first Respondent (Additional Principal Secretary of Revenue and Forests Department). Along with the said communication, the proposal for sanction has been forwarded to the State Government.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid communications, we need not keep the writ petition pending and we dispose of the same by passing the following order.

¶20

ORDER :

¶21

(a) We direct the first Respondent to decide the application made by the Petitioners (Exhibit-B to the Petition ) within a period of three months from the

ash

wp-3478.13

date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced by the Petitioners before the first Respondent;

¶26

(b) All contentions on merits are kept open;

¶27

(c ) We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the application made by the Petitioners;

¶28

(d) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶29

(e) The First Respondent to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

(A.R. JOSHI, J)

Shri. Narayan Phula Ghote and Ors. v. the Additional Principal Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Narayan Phula Ghote and Ors. v. the Additional Principal Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept 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

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Dr. Jayashree Sanjay Swami Vs District Collector, Kolhapur, Shri. Rajaram Mane, IAS and Ors.

Shri. Anant Bhiva Mahapralkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Cultural and Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Nilambari P. Tupe Vs Shri. Chetan Vitthal Tupe and Ors.

Omkar Dreams Associates, through Pratner, Shri. Dhairyasheel Uttamrao Khot Vs Bharat Kondu Pingale (Since Decd) through Lrs, Smt. Janabai Bharat Pingale and Anr.

Shardashram Vidyamandir Trust Vs Santosh Dhotre and Ors.