Dismissed

Agari Vidyarthi Mandal, Bhiwandi v. the State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2016WP/5475/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single justice held that this writ petition challenging an Additional Commissioner's order is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, leading to its dismissal with liberty to pursue that remedy. The interim relief securing the appeal was extended pending the exercise of that remedy.

What did the court decide?

Objection refused; interim relief secured in this appeal extended for four weeks pending the filing and disposition of the alternate statutory remedy under the Code.

Agari Vidyarthi Mandal, Bhiwandi Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

DSS

¶2

922-wp-5475-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5475 OF 2016

¶5

Agari Vidyarthi Mandal, Bhiwandi .. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. J. A. Udaipuri i/b M/s. Udaipuri & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms M.S. Bane, B-Panel Counsel for the State-Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 28 JULY 2016.

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9 November 2015 made by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dismissing the petitioner's appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code).

¶10

2] As against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the present petition. The petition is accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such alternate remedies as are provided under the Code.

¶11

3] The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will avail such alternate remedy within a period of two weeks from today. He submits that though the impugned order was made on 9 November 2015, certified copy of the same was delivered only on 3 February 2016 and this petition was filed on 3 March 2016

1/2

DSS

922-wp-5475-16

or thereabouts. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that during pendency of the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, there was interim relief operating in favor of the petitioner, subject to deposit of Rs.5 Lacs. Leaned counsel for the petitioner further states that this amount of Rs.5 Lacs has in fact, been deposited by the petitioner.

¶16

4] Relying upon the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim relief, which was in operation during the pendency of the appeal, is hereby extended for a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the extension of such interim relief is not on merits, as, this Court, has not adverted to the merits of the matter. Therefore, all contentions of all parties are kept open.

¶17

5] With liberty as aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.

¶18

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶19

dinesh

¶20

2/2

Agari Vidyarthi Mandal, Bhiwandi v. the State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agari Vidyarthi Mandal, Bhiwandi v. the State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sarjana Naresh Bhandari Vs Mr. Naresh Bala Prasad Chaurasia

Gurudev Chaitan and Swaroop Junglidas Maharaj Shikshan and Seva Saunstha, Ingali Vs Suresh Shankar Dukale and Ors.

Sea Face Park Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vilas Laxman Apte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Shakir Mohd. Ebrahim Vs Ms. Zakia Shakir Ebrahim

Mr. Hardik Rajesh Parikh Vs Mrs. Ruju Hardik Parikh Nee Ruju Anil Rathod