Dismissed

Rakshitkumar Shivajirao Aher v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Dec 2018WP/857/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected this writ petition challenging the condonation of delay regarding an appeal against mutation entry, holding that revenue entries are for fiscal purposes and do not adjudicate substantive rights as a civil suit is pending.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; pending appeal to be considered on its own merits by the appellate authority.

Rakshitkumar Shivajirao Aher Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

dyb

¶2

1 WP857-18dt 12-12-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 857 OF 2018

¶5

Rakshitkumar s/o Shivajirao Aher

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

 Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra
& others

¶9

…
Respondents

¶10

Mr. I.D. Maniyar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, AGP for Respondents 1 to 4.
Mr. V.A. Bagdiya, Advocate for Respondent no. 5.

¶11

Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J. Date : 12 December 2018

¶12

Per Court :

¶13

1.By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in
revision petition and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Parbhani condoning delay of 243 days in the appeal filed by the
respondent.

¶14

2.Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no. 5

¶15

dyb 2 WP857-18dt 12-12-2018

¶16

filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer challenging mutation
entry number 516. There is delay of 243 days in filing this appeal.
The Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 7 August 2015 condoned
the said delay and the revision against the said order was dismissed by
the Additional Commissioner by order dated 10 February 2017.

¶17

3.Firstly it must be noted that the proceeding arises from
correction of revenue records. It is settled that the revenue entries are
for the fiscal purposes. It is informed that the civil suit is pending
between the parties. Therefore, the proceeding themselves does not
adjudicate any substantive right. Secondly, I have gone through the
order. In view of the reason, the discretion exercised by the authority
to condone the delay of 243 days cannot be said to be perverse. Writ
petition is accordingly rejected. Pending appeal be considered on its
own merits by the appellate authority.

¶18

N.M. Jamdar, J.

Rakshitkumar Shivajirao Aher v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakshitkumar Shivajirao Aher 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

Roman Chatholic Church Mission Trust Bidkin through Rev Fr Wilfred Saldhana Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S R Rajkotiya and Company through Partners Rajesh Chandulal Rajkotiya and Another Vs Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal and Others

Adinath Rabhaji Honde Vs Sonali Suresh Waghmare and Others

Mohan Annasaheb Deshmukh Vs Shrimati Parwtibai Vitthalrao Ingale and Othres

Mohammad Amir Hamja Mulla and Another Vs the Additional Collector Osmanabad and Others

Padmaja Pandit Thakur and Others Vs Sapan Sushilkumar Zunzunwala