The High Court found it premature to entertain the writ petition as the petitioner has already filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against an order setting aside the Tahsildar's decision. The petition was disposed of without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP-8148.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8148 OF 2013
Balasaheb Deorao Yadav
...PETITIONER
versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.M. Ganachari, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4 Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 6
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 9th JUNE, 2016.
Order :-
2 WP-8148.13
Sd/-
Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
MTK
Balasaheb Deorao Yadav
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
S. V. Gangapurwala
K. K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
