Dismissed

Gorakhnath Devidas Wadekar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2013WP/5496/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court under Section 31A of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act for correction of errors in consolidation scheme. Court found grievance redressed as application rejected and disposed petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with no orders as the grievance appears already redressed by the rejection of the application.

Gorakhnath Devidas Wadekar Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 5496 of 2013

¶4

Gorakhnath s/o. Devidas Wadekar, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sahajatpur, Taluka & District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Settlement Commissioner / Dy. Director of Land Record, Aurangabad, and another. .. Respondents.

¶7

Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER 2013

¶11

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶12

Heard Adv. Mr. D.K. Kulkarni for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶13

(2)

¶14

The petitioner has approached this court for a direction to decide the application moved by him under Section 31A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,1947, for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes in implementation of Consolidation Scheme.

¶15

This Court has issued notice on 15th July 2013.

¶16

Learned AGP Mr. Suryawanshi has produced on record, copy of communication dated 28th June 2012, addressed to the petitioner. He submits that the said request was already rejected. The communication is taken on record and marked as Exhibit "X".

¶17

Adv. Mr. Kulkarni states that the communication is produced on record without any affidavit and the petitioner has not received any such communication. According to him, in this situation, if the decision is to be challenged, the question of limitation may crop up.

¶18

It is apparent that the respondents are pointing out to this Court, that the application has already been rejected. The petitioner claims that he has received that order today in the court. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and also to apply for condonation of delay if occasion therefor arises. The authority entertaining such grievance, being quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply law and reach necessary decision.

¶19

(3)

¶20

We, therefore, keep the contentions of petitioner open for its

¶21

due evaluation by the said authority.

¶22

With these observations, as we find that the grievance contained in the petition is already redressed, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶23

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

bgp/wp5496

Gorakhnath Devidas Wadekar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakhnath Devidas Wadekar v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tatyaba Babasaheb Ghogre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Khandu Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Waman Trimbak Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Sarjerao Magar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ashok Wamanrao Bankar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhatu Shankar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.