Disposed

Shri. Nivrutti Anna Patole v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2014WP/8816/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction for speedy decision of a representation for settlement under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. Court directed Second Respondent to decide within six months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to decide the application within six months from 23rd December, 2014.

Shri. Nivrutti Anna Patole Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-8816.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8816 OF 2014

¶6

Shri. Nivrutti Anna Patole … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rajaram Vaman Bansode, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.N.Patil, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - State.

¶8

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

¶9

DATE : 9^th DECEMBER, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶12

the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the representation made by the Petitioner and another, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 'D' to the Petition, can be decided by the Settlement Commissioner by exercising powers under Section 32(1) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the said representation/ application is not yet decided. The learned AGP has no instructions on this aspect. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order :-

1 of 2

wp-8816.14

ORDER

(i) We direct the Petitioner to appear before the second Respondent on 23rd December, 2014 at 11.00 am. The Petitioner shall produce an authenticated copy of this order as well as a photocopy of Exhibit 'D' before the second Respondent on that date;

¶18

(ii) The second Respondent shall decide the said application after notice to all the concerned parties including the Respondents to the said application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from 23rd December, 2014;

¶19

(iii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the prayers made by the Petitioner in the said application. The second Respondent shall decide the application on its own merits after considering the documents which may be relied upon by the parties;

¶20

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

¶21

(v) All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

(A.S. GADKARI, J )

¶23

2 of 2

Shri. Nivrutti Anna Patole v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Nivrutti Anna Patole v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept 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. Rajendra Gopalrao Girme Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Jayaprakash Education Society, through Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Gopalrao Girme Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Shri. Nivrutti Anna Patole Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Ors.

Mohd Mustaqueem Mohdd. Mustafa Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.