Disposed

M/S. Poddar Developers Ltd, through General Manager v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors. and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Nov 2014WP/5421/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by land revenue appeal petitioners, noting they had not exhausted remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Directing the Appellate Authority to decide pending interim applications within one month, the Court disposed of petitions while keeping all merits open.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Appellate Authority to decide pending interim applications within one month of producing the order. Petitions disposed of with all contentions on merits kept open.

M/S. Poddar Developers Ltd, through General Manager Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

1/2

WP5421-14.11

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5421 OF 2014

¶7

M/s. Poddar Developers Ltd. ..Petitioner. versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.5375 OF 2014

¶12

Dipak Kumar Poddar and another ...Petitioners. versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.

¶13

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms. Vandana Mehta, Mr. Nikhil Sansare and Ms. Gauri Vaidya i/b Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

14^th November 2014.

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. It is an admitted position that the Petitioners have already availed of a remedy of an appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. The judgment and order dated 8^th October 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.785 of 2008 still holds the field, in the sense that same has not been overturned by the Apex Court. The Petitioners have approached this Court after availing the

2/2

WP5421-14.11

PNP

remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Even after exhausting of the remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966, if the Petitioners do not succeed, they can always file a fresh writ petition in this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the interim applications made by the Petitioners are still pending before the Appellate Authority and the same are not being decided.

¶24

Hence, we dispose of the Petitions by passing the following order :

¶25

i) In view of pendecy of the appeals preferred by the Petitioners, at this stage, these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not entertained. The Petitions are disposed of. All the contentions raised by the Petitioners are expressly kept open;

¶26

ii) If the interim applications made by the Petitioners are still pending before the concerned Appellate Authority, we direct the concerned Appellate Authority to decide the said applications in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of one month from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced before it;

¶27

iii) The Appellate Authority to act on authenticated copy of this order;

¶28

iv) The Petitions are accordingly disposed of by keeping open all contentions on merits.

¶29

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

¶30

(A.S. Oka, J.)

M/S. Poddar Developers Ltd, through General Manager v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Poddar Developers Ltd, through General Manager v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors. 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

Dr. Milind Ulhas Kulkarni and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Ors.

Dr. Milind Ulhas Kulkarni and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Ors.

Girni Kamgar Sabha and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Pravin Dinkar Javalkar Vs Mrs. Nilam Pravin Javalkar

Symbiosis Society, through Mr. Jagannath Raghunath Pathare and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Mr. Lionel Samson Ballantyne and Ors. Vs the Secretary, Bombay Education Society, Christ Church School and Ors.