Allowed

Sadhnabai Nilkanth Dalvi v. the Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2018WP/5947/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the State Government's communication refusing previous approval. The writ petitioner was directed to reconsider the proposal within three months. The decision was to be communicated to the Collector for an order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 21st February 2018 was quashed. The State Government was directed to reconsider the proposal and communicate the decision within three months.

Sadhnabai Nilkanth Dalvi Vs the Collector, Nashik and Ors. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

SKN

¶2

1/2 5947.18-wp.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5947 OF 2018

¶5

Sadhnabai Nilkanth Dalvi … Petitioner. V/s. The Collector, Nashik and others … Respondents.

¶6

Mr.R.D.Soni i/b. Ram & Co. for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.P.G.Sawant, AGP for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S.SONAK, JJ. DATE : 16^th October 2018.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the communication dated 21^st February 2018 issued by the State Government while dealing with the proposal for grant of previous approval contemplated by clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Today, the learned AGP tendered across the bar a letter dated 15^th October 2018 addressed to him by the Joint Secretary of the Revenue and Forest Department of the State Government. The said letter is taken on record and marked “L-1” for identification. In the letter, the State Government has stated that in view of the decision of this Court dated 24^th February 2018 in Writ Petition No.9735/2017, the State Government is willing to

¶11

SKN

¶12

2/2 5947.18-wp.doc

¶13

reconsider its decision. We accept the statement made in the letter dated 15^th October 2018 and we dispose of this petition by passing the following order:

¶14

(i) The impugned communication dated 21^st February 2018 is quashed and set aside;

¶15

(ii) We direct the State Government to reconsider the proposal dated 30^th December 2015 submitted by the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of three months from today;

¶16

(iii) The decision taken by the State Government shall be communicated to the District Collector, Nashik who shall pass appropriate order on the pending proposal on the basis of the decision of the State Government. Appropriate order shall be passed by the Collector within a period of six weeks from the date on which the decision of the State Government is communicated to him;

¶17

(iv) Petition is disposed of on the above terms. All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶18

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶19

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Sadhnabai Nilkanth Dalvi v. the Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhnabai Nilkanth Dalvi v. the Collector, Nashik and Ors.

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

B. L. Chandrashekhar Vs Vyankatesh Sambha Manjrekar and 12 Others

Peth Vadgaon Municipal Council Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Vs

Tahira Javed Quereshi Vs Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Vs

Vs