Disposed

Smt. Rukhmini Suresh Dokphode v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2018WP/14019/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning restoration of land under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, the High Court directed the Respondent Revenue Minister to decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously, preferably within three months, without examining the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Revenue Minister to decide the petitioner's representation under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, as expeditiously as possible and preferab

Smt. Rukhmini Suresh Dokphode Vs State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

Mhi

WP-14019-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14019 OF 2017

¶5

Smt. Rukhmini Suresh Dokphode Petitioner Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Rajeev K. Panday, Mr..Antony Foss i/b. PRS legal for the petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP, for the State.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶10

SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ. DATE : 20th April, 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel.

¶13

The petitioner filed proceedings, being Adivasi Case No.118 of 2017 before the Addl. Tahsildar and A.L.T. Thane,under

¶14

Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the said order”) in respect of survey Nos. 59/17 (part) and 59/18 situated at Village Chitalsar Manpada respectively. The Addl. Tahasildar & A.L.T. Thane by his order dated 19.7.1979 observed that the

¶15

petitioner's case does not fall under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act

Mhi

WP-14019-17.doc

and accordingly dropped the proceedings.,

¶20

The petitioner has not challenged the above order by filing an appeal. However, after a lapse of approximately 38 years has filed revision under Section 7 of the said Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. Since the said revision is beyond the period of three years, the petitioner has approached the State Government by filing representation dated 16.10.2017 (a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit “G” to the petition) for issuing directions to the Commissioner to entertain the appeal after expiry of the limitation period.

¶21

The petitioner has sought relief to direct the Revenue Minister of the State Government to decide the said application on its own merits.

¶22

The learned AGP submits that she has no instructions and therefore unable to make any submission.

¶23

In the above circumstances, we deem it convenient to dispose of the above petition by directing Respondent No.2 – Revenue Minister to decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2017 (a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit “G” to the

Mhi

WP-14019-17.doc

petition) under the proviso to Section 7 of the said Act as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶28

It is made clear that we have not gone into merits of the matter. All points and contentions are kept open.

¶29

In order to enable the Revenue Minister to comply with this order, the petitioner shall remain present before him on 2.5.2018 along with a copy of the representation and a copy of this order.

¶30

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.]

¶32

[RANJIT MORE,J.]

Smt. Rukhmini Suresh Dokphode v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukhmini Suresh Dokphode v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Anr.

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

Shambhu Sharan Saxena Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Anjanikumar Sarju Singh Vs Additional Collector (Enc/Rem) Westrn Suburbs and Appellate Authority and 9 Ors.

Gulshan Anjuman Nursery Soc Vs Additional Collector(Enc/Rem)Western Suburbs and 9 Ors.

Fiorano Motors LLP Vs State Bank of India through Its Branch Manager Charkop Branch and Anr.

Yogesh Dhirajlal Vora Vs Reserve Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Mangal Borkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.