Dismissed

Bhimsha Rajba Bharle v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2014WP/12178/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing a Civil Court to decide a land acquisition reference in a time-bound schedule due to seniority. The Court declined to mandate such priority, noting it should not interfere in court administration where larger pendency exists, leaving the petitioner to apply to the Reference Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach the Reference Court for an appropriate order regarding priority.

Bhimsha Rajba Bharle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-12178.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12178 OF 2013

Bhimsha Rajba Bharle

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶10

Dr. Ramdas P. Sabban, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 27^th MARCH, 2014

¶12

P.C.

¶13

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a Writ of Mandamus is sought directing the Civil Court to decide a reference of the year 2012 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a time bound schedule. Priority is sought on the ground that the Petitioner is a Senior Citizen.

¶14

Judicial notice has to be taken of the fact that at district places in Maharashtra, there is a large pendency of matters of various categories in all Courts. The Petitioner who claims to be a Senior Citizen has come to this Court claiming that priority be given to the

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

2 wp-12178.13

¶17

Reference of the year 2012. We are sure that there may be older References pending in the said Court wherein the claimants are Senior Citizens. Only because a litigant can afford to come to the this Court, priority cannot be ordered to be given to his case over the other litigants who are waiting. In matters like this, the Writ Court should be extremely slow in issuing directions to the Courts working under the Superintendence of this Court to dispose of a case in a time bound schedule.

¶18

However, it will be open for the Petitioner to make an application to the Reference Court for giving priority to the hearing of his Reference. Considering the pendency of other matters in his Court, the learned Judge will pass appropriate order considering the fact that the Petitioner is a Senior Citizen. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of.

¶19

(A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶20

2 of 2

Bhimsha Rajba Bharle v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimsha Rajba Bharle v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shri. Vitthal Ganpat Otari Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Welfare and Ors.

Shri. Kerba Rama Patil Vs the Collector and Dy. Director of Rehabilitation, Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Babu Raghu Patil Vs the Collector and Dy. Director of Rehabilitation, Kolhapur and Ors.

Mohan Vitthal Kore Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtar Vs Anand Balkrishna Kulkarni