Disposed

Shree Bhagavati Stone Crusher, through Laxmiputtra S. Jamadar v. the Tahasildar Akkalkot and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2014WP/7861/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, directing that no coercive action be taken while the Appellate Authority decides a stay application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action taken against the petitioner until the Appellate Authority communicates its decision on the stay application within three weeks.

Shree Bhagavati Stone Crusher, through… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-7861.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7861 OF 2014

¶6

Shree. Bhagavati Stone Crusher, through Laxmiputtra S. Jamadar

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Tahasildar, Akkalkot and Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 26^th AUGUST, 2014

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶14

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶15

the learned AGP for the Respondents. The case of the Petitioner is that for challenging the order under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 dated 3rd May, 2014, the Petitioners have preferred an Appeal before the said Divisional Officer, Solapur. The grievance is that no order has been passed in the said Appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Appeal as well as the application for stay made therein are still pending. The learned AGP has no instructions about the status of the Appeal. Considering the

1 of 3

wp-7861.14

facts, we need not keep the Petition pending and the same is disposed of by passing the following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) We direct the Petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority on 10th September, 2014 at 11.00 am. The Petitioner shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the Appellate Authority;

¶22

(ii) The Appellate Authority shall decide the application for stay as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three weeks from the date fixed for appearance of the Petitioner. The order passed on the application shall be communicated to the Petitioner. Till the communication of the order passed on the said application to the Petitioner, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner on the basis of the order dated 3rd May, 2014. If the order be adverse to the Petitioner, this limited relief shall continue to operate for a period of three weeks from the date on which the order is served to the Petitioner;

¶23

(iii) We make it clear that all contentions are kept open.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

3 wp-7861.14

¶26

Application for stay shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the limited protection granted by this Court. If the Appellate Authority is inclined to grant stay, it will be open for the said Authority to impose appropriate conditions;

¶27

(iv) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶28

(G.S. KULKARNI, J )

¶29

(A.S.OKA, J )

¶30

3 of 3

Shree Bhagavati Stone Crusher, through Laxmiputtra S. Jamadar v. the Tahasildar Akkalkot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Bhagavati Stone Crusher, through Laxmiputtra S. Jamadar v. the Tahasildar Akkalkot 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

Mrs. Nutan Pathare Vs Shri. Onali Faizanehusain Bohari (Since Decd) through Legal Heirs, Smt. Shirinbai Onali Vora and or

Shri. Khandu Laxman Gotrane and Anr. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Jagdish Hiraman Jagtap Vs the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Its Ministry of Revenue and Ors. Vs Ashok Dhanyakumar Tavnnappannawar and Ors.

Dinesh Natvarlalmakani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Manoj Ramesh Bhoir Vs the Chief Land Officer and Land Surveyor Officer and Ors.