The petition challenged a communication requiring an NOC from the Collector for property mutation. The Court held that since an appeal under the MLRC was available, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Petition dismissed with liberty to file an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
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
dssherla
19-wp-1005-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1005 OF 2017
M/s. Geecy Developers and anr. .. Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents.
Mr. Deepak Shukla i/b M/s. Vinod Mistry and Co for the Petitioner. Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 20 NOVEMBER 2017.
P.C.
1 of 2
2
dssherla
19-wp-1005-17
present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternate remedies under the MLRC.
( CHIEF JUSTICE)
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a communication requiring an NOC from the Collector for mutation when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal exists.
Whether the penalty in a mutation communication is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution or under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Geecy Developers and anr.
State of Maharashtra and ors.
Dr. Manjula Chellur
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
