Dismissed

Dattu Pandurang Mali v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014WP/9087/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging an order correcting a mutation entry under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The court held the petitioner received sufficient hearing but failed to produce documents, and the Authority correctly found the reversal after 14 years unreasonable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Dattu Pandurang Mali Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.9087/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.9087 OF 2011

¶5

Dattu Pandurang Mali .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mrs M.G.Kasturkar, Advocate h/f Mrs M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.R.Palnitkar, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 4 Mr S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents 5 to 7 - absent

¶9

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE : 16th July 2014

¶11

PER COURT

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner, who is respondent in the proceedings before the Additional Chief Secretary, initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, has questioned the order dated 1st March 2011, passed in the proceedings bearing No.Consolidation 43(A) 04/224/P.K.115/L1-P.K.219(09)2008/AVP.

¶14

The said authority, while dealing with the claim of the petitioner in the matter of carrying out correction in mutation entry, has reversed the finding given by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, as the said mutation entry was ordered to be corrected at the behest of present petitioner, after a period of

¶15

W.P.No.9087/2011

¶16

¶17

14 years. The said findings were assailed by the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing before the authority and the order is bad in law in view of the evidence that was sought to be placed before the said authority.

¶18

The Counsel for respondents has objected the contention raised by the petitioner and has invited attention of this Court to the appreciation of evidence by the said authority and the opportunity offered to the petitioner and as such, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶19

Perusal of the order impugned reflects that the authority has given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter was adjourned at the behest of the petitioner for producing documents from time to time, however, petitioner failed to produce the same.

¶20

The authority has taken note of the fact that while taking recourse to the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, the property was mutated in the name of respondents on 20th May 1975 and the said mutation entry came to be reversed after 14 years at the behest of the present petitioner.

¶21

W.P.No.9087/2011

¶22

¶23

While passing the order impugned, the authority has relied upon judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No.1996 of 1989 decided on 23rd March 2001 and in Writ Petition No.3135 of 1996 decided on 3rd October 2006.

¶24

From the order impugned it is reflected that sufficient opportunity of hearing was offered to the present petitioner and the authority was right in reaching to conclusion that the entry which was sought to be reversed suffers from delay of 14 years.

¶25

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶26

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶27

(vvr/9087.11wp)

Dattu Pandurang Mali v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattu Pandurang Mali v. the State of Mahrashtra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devid Jeevan Jadhav and Another Vs Jailaxmi Purandar Naik and Others

Kantabai Sudam Mhaske Vs Shankar Baburao Sawant and Others

Kisan Baburao Sawant and Another Vs Shankar Baburao Sawant and Others

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman Vs 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman Vs 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dondaicha Vs Vishwasrao Yashwantrao Patil and Others