The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition filed by Balasaheb Bhaurao Gaikeda against the State of Maharashtra. The court held that the petition need not be entertained as an alternate efficacious remedy was available.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
9 WRIT PETITION NO. 441 OF 2014
BALASAHEB BHAURAO GAIKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Jayabhar Dattatraya R. AGP for Respondents: Mr. V.M. Kagne
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ. Date: December 01, 2015
PER COURT :-
1 In view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy provided under sections 33 and 34 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 read with clause 9.7 of the Government Resolution dated 2.2.2012, this petition need not be entertained.
2 Keeping the option of the petitioner to avail of alternate remedy available in law, open, this petition stands disposed of.
( A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained in view of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
BALASAHEB BHAURAO GAIKE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
A. I. S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
