Dismissed

Sau. Lankabai Damu Gondake v. the Dy. Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2016WP/7329/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that the impugned communication was merely an opinion by the Deputy Collector for the Collector's consideration, not a final order. The petition was declared premature and disposed of as the competent authority had not yet decided.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground of prematurity as the Collector had not yet decided the application.

Sau. Lankabai Damu Gondake Vs the Dy. Collector and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

DSS

¶2

906-wp-7329-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7329 OF 2016

¶5

Sau. Lankabai D. Gondake .. Petitioner vs. The Dy. Collector (Tenancy Cases Branch) and ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. T.N. Sonawane for the Petitioner. Ms M.S. Bane, B-Panel Counsel for the State.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 29 JULY 2016.

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1] The challenge in this petition is to the impugned communication/order dated 4 February 2016 passed by the respondent No.1 Deputy Collector, Tenancy Cases Branch, Collector Office, Nashik, which is annexed at Exhibit-B (page 17 to the memo of petition).

¶10

2] Upon perusal of the communication/order at Exhibit-B (at

¶11

page 17 to the memo of petition), it is quite clear that the same is not an order at all, but merely an opinion expressed by the Deputy Collector, for consideration of the Collector who is seized with the petitioner's application seeking permission under Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (said Code). Since, this is

1/2

DSS

906-wp-7329-16

only an opinion, which has been expressed by the Deputy Collector, there is obviously no question of challenging the same. As of now, the Collector, who is competent authority, has not disposed of the petitioner's application under Section 36-A of the Code. This petition is therefore, premature and is not required to be entertained.

¶16

3] The Collector, who is competent authority, under Section 36A of the Code to decide the petitioner's application, in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of three months from the date of production of authenticated copy of this order.

¶17

4] It is made clear that this Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter including, the merits or otherwise of the opinion expressed by the Deputy Collector. Therefore, it will be open to the Collector to take decision in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶18

5] This petition is accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

6] All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

dinesh

¶21

2/2

Sau. Lankabai Damu Gondake v. the Dy. Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Lankabai Damu Gondake v. the Dy. Collector 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

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

Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics Kolhapur (Tnfnap) and Ors. Vs Shri. Milind Shivajirao Jagtap and Ors.

M/S. Meuse Jupiter Business and Luxury Hotel Vs Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik and Ors.

Shri Arvind Digambar Bhat Vs Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.