Petitioner sought writ jurisdiction regarding dispute on land acquisition compensation and title where a civil suit and reference application were pending. The Court held no interference under Article 226 is required as the matter is already before civil courts.
Petition is disposed of; no interference with civil proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp6533.14.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6533 OF 2014
Madhav s/o Vithoba Ghodke .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
the State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. Kalyan Patil, advocate holding for Mr. S. R. Barlinge, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V. D. Godbharale, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2014.
PER COURT :
wp6533.14.doc
2
the claim raised by petitioner. No interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition stands disposed of.
( V. K. JADHAV ) JUDGE
( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference underArticle 226 is called for when the dispute regarding compensation and title is pending in other judicial forums.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhav s/o Vithoba Ghodke
the State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
