The Court rejected the petitioner's writ petition challenging a remand order by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad. It held the petition did not call for interference, declined to hear the matter on merits, and directed authorities to decide it subsequently.
The petition stands rejected. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 W.P.8593.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8593 OF 2012
Baban S/o Bapu Khot ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Collector Osmanabad and others ...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri A.R. Devakate, Advocate for Appellant
Smt. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
Shri E.S. Murge, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 04.03.2013
ORDER :
1. By this Petition, the petitioner takes exception
to order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the learned
Additional Collector, Osmanabad whereunder he has set
aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Paranda and
remanded the matter for re-enquiry.
2. The petitioner claims, application filed by
respondent no. 3 is not in format prescribed under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Construction of Water
Course) Rules, 1967 and the same is not an application
in law seeking water course through his land. He also
2 W.P.8593.12
refers to several facts inter-alia that there are about 100 to 200 water courses passing through his land, rendering it unuseful for cultivation.
3. The contention that no reasons are assigned in the
remand order, appears to have no substance for,
perusal of the order shows that, the authority has
given reasons under item nos. 1 and 2 in paragraph
preceding the operative order.
4. In the circumstances, having regard to factual and
legal position, the petition does not call for
interference in the impugned order.
5. Having regard to the nature of the order passed,
I do not deem it appropriate under discretionary
powers of this Court to hear the matter on merits,
rather it would be decided by the authority concerned.
6. It is open for the petitioner to take all
contentions as may be permissible under law in order
to resist passage of water course claimed by
respondent no. 2. The decision would be taken by the
3 W.P.8593.12
authorities on merits.
7.The petition stands rejected. No order as to
costs.
MTK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned remand order by the Additional Collector Osmanabad setting aside the Tahsildar's order and remanding the matter for re-enquiry calls for interference in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baban S/o Bapu Khot
The Collector Osmanabad
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court