Dismissed

Shri. Appasaheb Akapa Khotale and Ors. v. Shri. Prabhakar Kallu Khot and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2014WP/1840/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tenancy case was restored to be decided after a revision application was disposed of, but remained pending due to inaction by the petitioners. The court held that there was gross delay by the petitioners over 40 years without any steps taken to expedite the revision application, making it unfit for extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected as no case is made out for interference due to gross delay by petitioners over 40 years without approaching the revisional authority.

Shri. Appasaheb Akapa Khotale and Ors. Vs Shri. Prabhakar… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

WP1840.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1840 OF 2014

¶6

Appasaheb Akapa Khotale & Ors.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Prabhakar Kallu Khote & Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

CORAM:-A. S. OKA & A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED : -18/06/2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The present petitioners were some of the appellants in Tenancy Appeal No. 159 of 1972, which was decided by the judgment and order dated 5/10/1973. By the said order Tenancy Case No. 39A/64 filed by the petitioners and others, was restored with a direction that the said tenancy case shall be disposed of after the Revision Application No. 3 of 1971 is decided.

¶15

2 Now a grievance is made in this petition filed in January, 2014 that the tenancy case is not being decided as the revision application is not decided. There is no averment in the petition that after 5/10/1973, at any stage, the petitioners appeared before the revisional authority and prayed for disposal of the revision application.

1/2

WP1840.14

3 It appears that an application was made on 30/11/2011 by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for obtaining information about the revision / appeal No. 3/1971. The petitioners have slept over the matter almost for a period of 40 years.

¶20

4 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners tenders a letter dated 31/8/1990 addressed by the Tahsildar, Miraj, to one of the appellants in Tenancy Appeal No. 159/1972. It only records that the decision in Revision Application No. 3/1971 has not been received by the office of the Tahsildar. One of the appellants was informed that the proceedings of tenancy application filed by the petitioners will remain stayed till the disposal of the revision application. There is no averment in the petition that even after 31/8/1990, any steps were taken by the petitioners.

¶21

5 There is a gross delay and inaction on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be allowed to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioners to approach the revisional authority and satisfy the revisional authority that revision application is pending.

¶22

6 However, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶23

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶24

md.saleem

¶25

2/2

Shri. Appasaheb Akapa Khotale and Ors. v. Shri. Prabhakar Kallu Khot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Appasaheb Akapa Khotale and Ors. v. Shri. Prabhakar Kallu Khot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Gopal Tendolkar Vs 1. Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Ibrahim Fakirsaheb Nalband and Ors.

Smt. Rukminibai Laxmipati Dasari Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Arya Agrotech Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Bank of India, through Bank Branch Manager and Anr.

Sharad Narayan Ghante Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribunal Development Department and Ors.

Shri. Satish Babaso Desai Vs Circle Officer, Circle Office, Kabnoor and Ors.