Allowed

Bhagvat Yamaji Kalwaghe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Jul 2018WP/6273/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to enforce a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decision from 2014. The State refused reliance on a 2015 Corrigendum that shifted appellate powers. Court held the Tribunal had jurisdiction at the time and dismissed the State's reliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to enforce the decision rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 24.01.2014.

Bhagvat Yamaji Kalwaghe Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp627316.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6273 OF 2016

¶5

Bhagvat s/o Yamaji Kalwaghe age 83 years, occ. Advocate R/o Shivajinagar, Kopargaon Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Ahmednagar Collector Office, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar

¶9

Additional Collector, Ahmednagar Collector Office, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar

¶10

Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 10 Officer Ahmedngar, Appointer under Ceiling Act for Restoration of land to original lessor A/P Tal - Ahmednagar

¶11

Respondents

¶12

Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for all respondents.

¶13

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶14

A.M.DHAVALE, JJ. DATE : 18^th July, 2018

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per R.M. Borde, J.)

¶16

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

¶17

2 Petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to act upon and enforce the decision rendered by Maharashtra

¶18

{2}

¶19

wp627316.odt

¶20

Revenue Tribunal in Case No. 42/A/2013/AN dated 24.01.2014.

¶21

3 Respondents have refused to enforce the decision rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in view of the Corrigendum issued on 18.09.2015. By virtue of the Corrigendum dated 18.09.2015, powers have been conferred on the revenue authorities in terms of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It also cannot be controverted that guidelines were issued on 04.05.2012 and, in terms of clause 9.5, appellate powers were conferred on the authority exercising jurisdiction in respect of the matters arising out of proceedings under Sections 33 and 34 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The jurisdiction, in view of the clause, as stated above, was exercisable by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶22

4 It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the instant matter decision has been rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 24.01.2014, much prior to issuance of Corrigendum by the State on 18.09.2015. Thus, it cannot be construed that the decision rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is without jurisdiction. On the date, on which the decision was rendered, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was conferred with appellate powers to decide the appeal and a decision has been rendered in accordance with the provisions, which were applicable at the relevant time. The decision of the State Government recorded in the Corrigendum dated 18.09.2015 cannot be applied retrospectively in respect of the matters which are already disposed of and the orders have attained

wp627316.odt

{3}

finality.

5 Reliance placed by the Respondents on the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 1545/2015 and connected matters is misplaced.

¶27

6 For the reasons recorded above, writ petition deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

A.M.DHAVLE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

adb/

Bhagvat Yamaji Kalwaghe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagvat Yamaji Kalwaghe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Jalindar Pandu Khandagale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balram Devarambhai Chawda Dna Others Vs the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Maharashtra Rajya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh through Its Ahmednagar District President Sanjay Mohan Sh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Omprakash Narsayya Shrilele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Proposed Dnyanopasak Mahavidyalayin Karmachari Sahakari Grugh Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Parbhani Tr Chi Pr Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Nagorao Pallewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others