Disposed

Kantrao Kundlikrao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Apr 2014WP/2831/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad directed the Divisional Commissioner to inquire into a complaint alleging that a person obtained a residential plot through forged documents. The court directed the authorities to take expeditious action by the end of 2014 following due process.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Divisional Commissioner to inquire into the complaint and take remedial measures regarding the alleged fraudulent allotment of a plot.

Kantrao Kundlikrao Jadhav and Another Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

 WP 2831/14

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.2831/2014

¶6

Kantrao Kundlikrao Jadhav
and another.

¶7

...Petitioners..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri M.M. Nerlikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 7.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 03.04.2014

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]The Deputy Secretary of Revenue and Forest

¶18

Department by communication dated 1.7.2009 informed the
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,
to enquire into the complaint lodged by the petitioners
and take appropriate remedial measures. The petitioners

¶19

 WP 2831/14

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

have made a complaint that the respondent no.8, who was

¶22

not entitled to be allotted a residential plot is the
beneficiary of the Government policy. It is also
contended by the petitioners that the said respondent no.
8 is not the eligible person to secure the benefits who
has tendered forged documents. A direction was given to
the Divisional Commissioner to take appropriate measures

¶23

after conducting necessary inquiry. The Deputy

¶24

Commissioner, Rehabilitation, in turn has directed the
District Rehabilitation Officer to consider the complaint

¶25

and take appropriate measures. However, according to
petitioners, nothing has been done in the matter by the
concerned respondents.

¶26

2]In the facts and circumstances of this case, this
petition can be disposed of by issuing directions to the
respondent nos.3 & 4 to take appropriate measures after

¶27

following the due procedure and on observance of the
principles of natural justice. The respondents are
expected to take action in consonance with the policy
prescribed by the Government and in accordance with law.
Necessary action shall be taken as expeditiously as
possible and preferably by the end of the year 2014, if

¶28

 WP 2831/14
- 3 -

¶29

deemed necessary.

¶30

3]With the directions as above, the writ petition
stands disposed of.

¶31

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶32

ndk/c341418

Kantrao Kundlikrao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantrao Kundlikrao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ahmed Ali Mohd. Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahakali Chandramata Magaswargiya Maschya Vyavsaik Sahakri Sanstha Maryadit, Kalkoti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Mantaram Tejarao Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akshay Arvind Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Panditrao Harshe and Another Vs Union of India, through Its Chief Election and Others

Khan Kamgar Majoor Sanstha and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others