Dismissed

Bhauso Bapu Magdum v. Mahadev Tatoba Pargave and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2016WP/2447/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the refusal of permission under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The court held the petition infructuous as some respondents were already dismissed in a prior order by the Registrar on 5.5.2015.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous in view of the subsequent dismissal of the application against certain respondent parties by the Registrar.

Bhauso Bapu Magdum Vs Mahadev Tatoba Pargave and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

21 wp2447-14

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2447 OF 2014

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶5

Mr.P.D.Patil for the petitioner

¶6

Mr.Nikhil Pawar i/b Mr.T.S.Ingle for the respondent no.2

¶7

Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.7 and 8

¶8

CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2 By this petition under Article 227 of the

¶12

Constitution of India, the Petitioner plaintiff challenges the judgment and order dated 21.5.2013 passed by learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in TNC/REV/35/2007 and the judgment and order dated 23.6.2006 in Kavi/678/2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji refusing to grant permission under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

¶13

3 In the present proceeding, initially the

Mohite

1/3

21 wp2447-14

petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 146 of 2000 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Peth Vadgaon, Tal Hatkanangle, Dist.Kolhapur for specific performance and perpetual injunction. That suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 16.8.2002. Operative part of the decree reads thus:

¶18

“(1) The suit is hereby decreed with costs. (2) The defendants are hereby directed to take necessary steps / compliance to obtain permission from the appropriate authority under section 43(1) of the B.T. and A.L.Act to execute sale deed of suit property in favour of plaintiff within three months from the date of this order.

¶19

(3) If defendants fails to take such necessary steps then plaintiff is directed to take appropriate steps for obtaining permission from appropriate authority, on his application, through court commissioner, on the cost of defendants.

¶20

(4) In case the appropriate authority not given such permission to execute the sale deed, then defendants are directed to refund purchase price of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. (5) The prayer of plaintiff regarding perpetual injunction is hereby dismissed. (6) Decree be drawn accordingly.”

¶21

4 As the defendant failed and neglected to apply the authority for permission under section 43 of the said Act, Trial Court appointed Court Commissioner for filing application under section 43 of the said Act and the said permission was

Mohite

2/3

21 wp2447-14

refused. Hence, the present petition.

¶26

5 During the pendency of the present petition, learned Registrar passed order on 5.5.2015 dismissing the petition against respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 (org.defendant nos.3 to 6). As the application is dismissed against some of the contesting parties i.e. original defendant nos.3 to 6, in my opinion, nothing survives in the present petition.

¶27

6 Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent development.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Mohite

¶30

3/3

Bhauso Bapu Magdum v. Mahadev Tatoba Pargave and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhauso Bapu Magdum v. Mahadev Tatoba Pargave and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshad Ganpat Nimje and Ors. Vs Shilpa Harshad Nimje and Anr.

Yeshwant Samaj Kalyan Co. Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Simple Pradeep Nimkar Vs Pradeep Madhusudan Nimkar

Shri Jagannath Kaluram Modak Vs Ganba Parshuram Gaikwad,Deced. His L.R. 1. Smt Muktabai D/of Genba P. Gaikwad and Ors.

Shri. Athar Hussain Saida Husain Chaudhary Vs Krupasankar Sivdas Patel through Poa, Shri Harishchandra K. Patel and Ors.

Mr. Suresh Vishnu Mohite Vs Mrs. Surekha Suresh Mohite