Disposed

Maruti Sayaji Malusare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014CAW/985/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court clarified that the applicants can rely on an application for partition dated 24.10.1988, attaching it as an annexure, despite an earlier observation that the application was never made, effective at the stage of admission.

What did the court decide?

Appellees granted leave to amend petition to rely on application dated 24.10.1988 within three weeks; main writ petition placed before appropriate court.

Maruti Sayaji Malusare and Ors. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

caw985

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.985 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2013

¶5

Maruti Sayaji Malusare & Ors.
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

...Applicants

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Niranjan Mogre for the applicants
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent No.1

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 G.S.KULKARNI, JJ.
 DATE : OCTOBER 13,2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned AGP for the respondent. Prayer made in
this application is for recall of the order dated 4th
February 2013 in Writ Petition No.8 of 2013 filed by
the applicants.

¶12

2In the Writ Petition filed by the applicants,
reliance was placed on the document dated 20th
October 1988 which is allegedly a document in the
nature of a Memorandum of Partition effected
earlier. It was urged that an application was made
on 5th September 1988 for giving effect to the
partition reflected from the said document. In
paragraph 3 of the said order dated 4th February
2013 it is noted that the application for taking
entry on the basis of the alleged partition
reflected from the document dated 20th October 1988

¶13

caw985

¶14

¶15

was never made.

¶16

3By filing this application, the applicant is
relying upon the application dated 24th October 1988
allegedly made by the first applicant to the Circle
Officer at Kikavi. The said application is made on
the basis of the document dated 20th October 1988 for
giving effect to the partition in the revenue
record. Today, additional affidavit is filed by
Shri Ramchandra Sukhdeo Chobe, Tahsildar, Pune in
terms of the directions issued by this Court.
Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit records that the
application dated 24th October 1988 was indeed made
by the first applicant to the Circle Officer, Kikavi
for giving effect to the unregistered Partition.
Thus, the application on which the applicants are
relying upon is found to be genuine.

¶17

4The order dated 4th February 2013 is an order
passed at admission stage. The main petition is
pending at the stage of admission.

¶18

5In view of the affidavit of Shri Ramchandra
Chobe,Tahsildar, we clarify that notwithstanding the
said order dated 4th February 2013, it will be open
fortheapplicantstorelyuponthe
letter/application dated 24th October 1988 which is
annexed to this application as well as on the
document dated 20th October 1988. We make it clear
that the observations made in paragraph 3 of the
order dated 4th February 2013 will not come in the
way of the applicants relying upon the said

¶19

3 caw985

¶20

documents at the time of hearing as to admission.
With the above clarification, Civil Application is
disposed of.

¶21

6We grant leave to the applicants to amend the
petition for the purpose of relying the application
dated 24th October 1988 and for the purpose of
annexing a copy of the said application.

¶22

7Amendment shall be carried out within a period
of three weeks from today. Place the main Writ
Petition before the appropriate Court.

Maruti Sayaji Malusare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Sayaji Malusare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept

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

Dilip Ramchandra Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Bramhanand Bhagwansingh Pardeshi Vs District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Smt. Chhaya Rajendra Zende and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

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.