Dismissed

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner v. Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2014CAO/155/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a review application and writ petition. While no action was taken against the land officer for affidavit statements, the court held that the petitioner's lapses and conduct justified exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 payable to the Solapur Municipal Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the Solapur Municipal Corporation within two months.

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

Dixit

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2014 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.18571 OF 2014 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 1997

¶7

Solapur Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner … Applicant V/s. Ajit Narsinha Takalikar & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8057 OF 2014

¶9

Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar (deceased) Through Ajit Narsinha Takalikar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Applicant in CAW/155/2014 and for Respondent No.5 in WP/8057/2014.

¶11

Dr. Ramdas P. Sabban for the Petitioner in WP/8057/2014 and for Respondent No.1 in CAW/155/2014.

¶12

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2014 .

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Shri. Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan, the Chief Executive Officer (Administration), the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, Pune, is

¶16

2/3

¶17

present in the Court, who has filed affidavit dated 13^th October, 2014. We have perused the Judgment and Order dated 19^th September, 2014, passed by this Court in the present Writ Petition and in the Review Petition. The stand taken by Mr. Chavan in the affidavit is that he has not made any incorrect statement in his earlier affidavit regarding the possession of the Petitioner in respect of property in dispute, but he has merely reproduced what is set out in the Minutes of the Order filed in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997. He pointed out that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by him in Writ Petition No.10379 of 2009, it was stated that the possession of the excess land was taken over on 16^th February, 1995. His contention is that he has not made any incorrect statement in the affidavit.

¶18

The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is personally present in the Court and he has tendered an affidavit, which is affirmed today. He has tendered unconditional apology to this Court for lapses on his part not only in the present matters but also in the earlier matters.

¶19

We have perused the affidavit of Shri. Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan filed in Writ Petition No.10379 of 2009. Though the fact that Solapur Municipal Corporation is in possession of a substantial part of the excess land could have been pointed out, we find that he has not made any factually incorrect statement in his affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.10379 of 2009. While asserting that the possession of the excess land was taken over on 16^th February, 1995, he has quoted what is recorded in the Minutes of Order filed in this Court in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997. Hence, by accepting the statements of Shri. Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan in the affidavit tendered today, we are of the view that it is not necessary to take any action against him.

¶20

3/3

¶21

As regards the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014, in view of the findings recorded in the Judgment and Order dated 19^th September, 2014 and in particular in paragraph 21, this was a fit case to set the criminal law in motion against the Petitioner. However, today, the Petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology for the lapses on his part in the present Petition as also for the lapses on his part in the earlier Petitions filed by him. Only in view of the apology that we are not directing that the criminal law should be set in motion against the Petitioner.

¶22

However, considering the nature of conduct of the Petitioner highlighted in the Judgment and Order dated 19^th September, 2014, this is a fit case where the Petitioner will have to be saddled with exemplary costs. We quantify the amount of costs at Rs.50,000/-. The amount of costs of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the Petitioner in this Petition to the Solapur Municipal Corporation within a period of two months from today. The Petition is already disposed of. No further directions are required to be issued.

¶23

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner v. Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner v. Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar 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. Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Balkrishna Jagannath Lad Vs Indian Postal Dept, through Chief Postmaster Gen. Maharashtra Circle and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Sai Developers Vs the City and Industrial Development Corporaiton Fo Maharasthra Ltd. and Others

Avinash Vitthalrao Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Law and Justice Dept and Ors.

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner Vs Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.