Disposed

Narayan Krishna Sawant v. the Collector of Sindudurga and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Feb 2016WP/2342/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court entertained a writ petition challenging an order of arrest issued for non-compliance with Section 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Noting that a revision application regarding the underlying order was pending before the State Government, the court stayed the execution of the arrest order and directed the petitioner to appear before the Revisional Authority for a stay applicat

What did the court decide?

Stayed the implementation of the order of arrest dated 14.01.2016 until the Revisional Authority decides on the application for stay/interim relief.

Narayan Krishna Sawant Vs the Collector of Sindudurga and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skn 1/3 2342.16-wp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2342 OF 2016

¶4

Narayan Krishna Sawant. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Collector of Sindhudurga and others. ... Respondents.

¶5

Rajshekhar V. Govilkar for the petitioner. V.B.Thadani, AGP for the respondents.

¶6

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND C.V.BHADANG, JJ DATED : 29^th February 2016.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that notwithstanding the order dated 20^th March 2015 passed in Writ Petition No.265/2015 filed by the petitioner, the revision application preferred by the petitioner before the State Government has not been disposed of. He urged that on one hand the revision application has not been disposed of and on the other hand, an action of arrest is sought to be taken on the basis of the impugned order dated 14^th January 2016 passed by the Tahasildar.

¶9

The order dated 14^th January 2016 is based on the failure of the petitioner to comply with the order passed under sub-section (7) of

¶10

skn 2/3 2342.16-wp.sxw

¶11

section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The revision application, which is pending before the State Government arises out of the order passed under sub-section (7) of section 48 of the said Code.

¶12

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order passed in Writ Petition No.2974/2014 directs the State Government to take action in accordance with law and, therefore, the Officers of the Revenue Department are under obligation to follow the due process of law.

¶13

We accept the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision application is not yet disposed of. The learned AGP has no instructions about the status of the revision application.

¶14

Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by passing the following order:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(i) We direct the petitioner to appear before the Revisional Authority on 21^st March 2016 at 2.30 p.m. The Revisional Authority shall decide the application for stay/interim relief made in the revision application as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of two weeks from 21^st March 2016. The order passed on the application for stay/interim relief shall be forthwith communicated to the petitioner. Till the date of the communication of the said order, the impugned order dated 14^th January 2016 (the order of arrest) shall not be implemented; (ii) If the order passed by the Revisional Authority be adverse to

¶17

skn 3/3 2342.16-wp.sxw

¶18

the petitioner, the order dated 14^th January 2016 shall not be implemented for a period of one month from the date of communication of the said order passed on the application for stay/interim relief;

¶19

(iii) All contentions on merit are kept open;

¶20

(iv) The petition is disposed of in the above terns;

¶21

(v) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

(C.V. BHADANG, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Narayan Krishna Sawant v. the Collector of Sindudurga and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Krishna Sawant v. the Collector of Sindudurga 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

Janhit Manch through Its President Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 16 Ors.

Aminuddin Saeed Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.and Razzak Ahmed Shaikh and 9 Ors(Applicants

Aminuddin Saeed Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors. and Sayeda Waqar and 13 Ors. (Applicants)

Sitabai Gundoba Banawalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Anil Ramrao Ovalekar Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Thane and Anr.

Smt. Asifa Khan Qamrul HUDA Khan and Ors. Vs Thane Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Anr.