Dismissed

Raju Ratan Chambhar (Kamble) and Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji Division and Ors.

Bombay HC31 Aug 2016WP/5182/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the grant of sale permission and non-decision on recall application by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Court directed the petitioner to appear for the Sub-Divisional Officer to ensure expeditious decision after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the pending application within four months upon hearing all affected parties.

Raju Ratan Chambhar (Kamble) and Anr. Vs Sub-Divisional… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

ash

wp-5182.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5182 OF 2013

¶5

Raju Ratan Chambhar (Kamble) and Another. .. Petitioners Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji Division, and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Akshay P. Shinde for the Petitioners. Shri P.G. Sawant, AGP for the Respondent No.7.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED : 31ST AUGUST 2016

¶8

PC.:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

The first challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 16^th May 2012 by which on the Application made by the contesting Respondents, a sale permission under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ( for short “BTAL Act”) was granted to the second Respondent. The Petitioners made an Application dated 22^nd August 2012 before the Sub-Divisional Officer for recall of the order dated 16^th May 2012. In the Application, the Petitioners contended that the Respondents had

ash

wp-5182.13

suppressed the material facts and especially the order of status quo passed by this Court.

¶15

The grievance in the Petition is that though the said Application was heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer, no order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the said Application. The learned AGP has no instructions on this aspect.

¶16

In the Petition, there is an averment that the said Application dated 22^nd August 2012 is not yet decided. As far as the order dated 16^th May 2012 is concerned, a remedy of filing Revision Application is available under the BTAL Act. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

(a) We direct the Petitioners or their representative to remain present before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji Sub-Division, Ichalkaranji, on 10^th October 2016 at 11.00 a.m.;

¶19

(b) The Petitioners shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the Sub-Division Officer,

ash

wp-5182.13

Ichalkaranji Sub-Division, Ichalkaranji, who shall act upon the same. Along with the authenticated copy, the Petitioners shall produce a true copy of the Application dated 22^nd August 2012;

¶24

(c) If the Application dated 22^nd August 2012 is already decided, a copy of the order passed on the said Application be provided to the Petitioners;

¶25

(d) If the Application is not yet decided, the SubDivisional Officer shall decide the said Application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from 10^th October 2016;

¶26

(e) We make it clear that the Application shall be decided only after issuing notice to all the affected parties and after giving them an opportunity of being heard;

¶27

(f) We make it clear that no adjudication is made on merits of the said Application dated 22^nd August 2012 as well as on merits of the order dated 16^th May 2012;

ash

wp-5182.13

(g) All contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept

¶32

open;

¶33

(h) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶34

(A.A. SAYED, J)

¶35

( A.S. OKA, J )

Raju Ratan Chambhar (Kamble) and Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Ratan Chambhar (Kamble) and Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji Division 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

Vinit Kumar Tulsyan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S.Chauhan Mansion Residents Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Pramod Sainath Mhatre Vs the Managing Director, Cidco and Ors.

Raju Ratan Chambhar (Kamble) and Anr. Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji Division and Ors.

Deepak Sitaram Hire and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Sadashiv Navle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.