Dismissed

Manmath Shivlingappa Devangre and Others v. Sushilabai Sopan Vanjane, Lrs Sanjiv Sopan Vanjane and Others

Bombay HC28 Sept 2015WP/994/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders in a regular civil suit regarding reference of an issue to the competent authority under the Bombay Prevention of Consolidation and Fragmentation Act, 1958. The court held that the petition is not being entertained and stands rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected and disposed of; Rule stands discharged.

Manmath Shivlingappa Devangre and Others Vs Sushilabai Sopan… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

{1}

wp994-15

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.994 OF 2015

¶6

1.	Man Age R/o Taluk	math s/o Shivlingappa Devangre PETITIONER - 64 years, Occ - Agriculture Village Shirur Anantpal, a - Shirur Anantpal, District - Latur
2.	Madh Age R/o Taluk	ukar s/o Sangappa Jalkote - 53 years, Occ - Agriculture Village Shirur Anantpal, a - Shirur Anantpal, District - Latur
3.	Raje Age R/o Distr	shwar s/o Kisanrao Yerande, - 34 years, Occ - Agriculture Pandharwadi, Taluka - Shirur Anantpal, ict - Latur
	VERS	US
1.	Sush Died	ilabai w/o Sopan Vanjane RESPONDENTS through L.Rs.
	1A)	Sanjiv s/o Sopan Vanjane, Age - 54 years, Occ - Agriculture R/o Village Shirur Anantpal, Taluka - Shirur Anantpal, District - Latur
	1B)	Rajiv s/o Sopan Vanjane, Age - 49 years, Occ - Agriculture R/o Village Shirur Anantpal, Taluka - Shirur Anantpal, District - Latur
2.	Maha Died	ling s/o Mahadavrao Dighole, Through LRs.
	2A)	Prayagbai w/o Mahaling Dighole, Age - 59 years, OCc - House wife R/o As above
	2B)	Rajeshwar s/o Mahaling Dighole, Died through his LRs.

¶7

{2}

¶8

wp994-15

¶9

2B-1)Ganesh s/o Rajeshwar Dighole, Age - 25 years, Occ - Service & Agri. R/o As above

¶10

2C) Jagdish s/o Mahaling Dighole, Age - 35 years, Occ - Agriculture R/o as above

¶11

2D) Baby d/o Mahaling Dighole, Age -33 years, Occ - House wife R/o as above

¶12

Ganesh s/o Rajeshwar Dighole, Age - 25 years, Occ - Service and Agriculture R/o As above

¶13

Mr. C. D. Biradar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. A. V. Patil, Advocate for respondents

¶14

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶15

DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties.

¶18

Present petition has been moved by petitioners - defendants No.2, 3 and 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2012 challenging orders dated 28^th August, 2014 on Exhibit-157 and dated 21^st November, 2014 on Exhibit-164, by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga.

¶19

{3}

¶20

wp994-15

¶21

Application Exhibit-157 was moved by the plaintiffs seeking to refer issue No.3 to the competent authority under the Bombay Prevention of Consolidation and Fragmentation Act, 1958, which was allowed vide order dated 28^th August, 2014 and Exhibit-164 was moved at the instance of defendants seeking review and modification of order on Exhibit-157, which was rejected on 21^st November, 2014.

¶22

Averments in the plaint appear to have given rise to issue No.3 whereas the defendants rely on sale deed executed in their favour treating the same to be a house property.

¶23

Having regard to nature of dispute arisen and issue No.3 having already been framed and the considerations which have weighed with the trial court while passing the impugned order do not appear to be non germane or perverse and taking into account that decision of this court has been relied on, I do not deem it appropriate to meddle with the situation arising.

¶24

Writ petition as such, is not being entertained and is rejected. Contentions, which have been taken up in the writ petition opposing reference of issue to the competent authority, primarily that these are house properties and not covered by

¶25

{4} wp994-15

¶26

aforesaid enactment, may be taken up before the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider the same on its own merits and decide on the matter.

¶27

With these observations writ petition stands disposed of. Rule stands discharged.

¶28

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶29

drp/wp994-15

Manmath Shivlingappa Devangre and Others v. Sushilabai Sopan Vanjane, Lrs Sanjiv Sopan Vanjane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmath Shivlingappa Devangre and Others v. Sushilabai Sopan Vanjane, Lrs Sanjiv Sopan Vanjane and Others

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

Aradhana @ Smita Shrikant Shejwal Vs Shrikant Rambhau Shejwal

Baburao Prabhuappa Khawade Vs Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Amir and Others

Sunilbhau Mahajan Swayamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited through Its Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Minakshi Mahadeo Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Pruthviraj Kallappa Chilwant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Bahru Savitri Athare Vs Ambadas Kesu Sase, Lrs Lankabai and Others