Disposed

Aruna G.Jarandikar and Ors. v. Yashwant Vitthal Mane

Bombay HC15 Nov 2016WP/8115/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a revision dismissal order. The Court held no case for extraordinary writ jurisdiction as a second revision application was available. An extension of time was granted to file the second revision without limitation concerns, and the interim stay remained effective.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to institute a second revision application within three months to be entertained without limitation; interim order remains in operation for three months.

Aruna G.Jarandikar and Ors. Vs Yashwant Vitthal Mane — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skc

¶2

205-WP-8115-03

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8115 OF 2003

¶5

Smt. Aruna Gopal Jarandikar & Ors. .. Petitioners vs. Shri Yashwant Vitthal Mane .. Respondent None for Petitioner. None for Respondent.

¶6

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 15 NOVEMBER 2016

¶7

P.C :

¶8

1] The petitioners challenge judgment and order dated 31 July 2003 made by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune dismissing the petitioners' revision application under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code) in the matter of entries in revenue records.

¶9

2] As against the impugned order, the petitioners, have a right to institute a second revision application before the State Government, in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors .¹ Incidentally, this ruling of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 2006 vide judgment and order dated 6 November 2015.²

¶10

1 2005 SCC On Line Bom. 1679.

¶11

2 2016 (1) Bom. C.R. 264

1/2

skc

205-WP-8115-03

3] In view of the aforesaid, there is no case made out to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

4] However, Rule had been issued in this petition on 16 December 2005 and interim stay was also granted. If, therefore, the petitioner, now institutes a second revision application against the impugned order within a period of three months from today, the same shall be entertained by the revisional authority on merits, without adverting to the issue of limitation. For a period of three months from today, the interim order shall remain in operation.

¶17

5] This petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

6] The Registry to inform the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner about the making of this order within a period of two weeks from today and place the necessary intimation on record in the file.

¶19

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

¶20

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶21

Chandka

¶22

2/2

Aruna G.Jarandikar and Ors. v. Yashwant Vitthal Mane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna G.Jarandikar and Ors. v. Yashwant Vitthal Mane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Capital Controls India Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs De Nora Water Technologies, Inc.

Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. Vs Chloro Controls (India ) Pvt. Ltd.

Shahi Shipping Limited (Formerly Sks Logistics Limited) Vs Fairmacs Shipping and Transport Services Pvt. Ltd.

Jaya Jayantilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Smt. Sumitra Narayan Sakpal Alias Venibai L. Bhuvad through Ca. Shri. Narendra Sakpal Vs Addl. Konkan Divisional Officer and Ors.

Usman Ibrahim Mujawar Vs Hazarat Peer Malik Rehan Durgah and Anr.