Dismissed

M/S. Vitthal Refined Sugar Ltd. v. District Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014WP/25/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the refusal of non-agricultural use permission and non-registration of a sale deed. The High Court dismissed the petition for lack of specific averments regarding applications and registration attempts. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority civilly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner directed to make application to Appropriate Authority and attempt registration at Sub-Registrar.

M/S. Vitthal Refined Sugar Ltd. Vs District Collector… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-25.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.25 OF 2014

¶6

M/s. Vitthal Refined Sugar Ltd. … Petitioner Vs. District Collector and others ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh, for Petitioner. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 3^rd JULY, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The

¶12

first grievance in the Petition is that the permission for nonagricultural use has not been granted to the petitioner in spite of the applications made by the petitioner. In the Petition, there is no specific averment that a particular application for grant of nonagricultural permission was made to particular authority on particular date. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced for perusal of the Court a letter dated 4^th June, 2012 addressed by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur. However, in the Petition, there is no reference to the said letter. We have a serious doubt whether the Tahsildar has power to grant permission for non agricultural use under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The second grievance is regarding the nonacceptance of

1 of 2

wp-25.14

a Sale Deed for registration by the SubRegistrar, Karmala. In relation to this grievance, prayer clause (B) has been incorporated. Even as regards the said prayer, the averments made in support of the prayer are devoid of any particulars. There is a vague averment that the petitioner had approached the respondents in the last week of November, 2013, made an enquiry and that the petitioner was informed that the respondents are refusing to register any document relating to the land in a particular village. There is no averment made that any attempt was made by the petitioner to lodge the Sale Deed for registration in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908.

¶17

2] Therefore, the writ as prayed for in prayer clauses (A) and (B) cannot be issued.

¶18

3] It is for the petitioners to make an application for grant of permission for nonagricultural use to the Appropriate Authority in a proper format. The petitioner can always make an attempt to lodge the Sale Deed for registration in accordance with law before the Sub Registrar having jurisdiction. If the SubRegistrar refuses to registrar the document or accept the document for registration, the petitioner can always take recourse to the remedies in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated above, the Petition is disposed of.

¶19

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

¶20

2 of 2

M/S. Vitthal Refined Sugar Ltd. v. District Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vitthal Refined Sugar Ltd. v. District Collector, Solapur 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. Salim Mohammed Shaikh Vs the Collector of Satara and Ors.

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, through Legal Officer, Shri. Arvind Mahadeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Co-Op. and Textile Dept and Ors.

Sou. Sumitra Sumit Patole Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Anr.

Murali Rahdomal Khubhchandani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Public Works Dept, Kollhapur and Ors.

Prakash Mohanlal Advani Vs the Collector of Sangli and Ors.

Mrs. Yashoda Rajendra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Ors.