A PIL regarding prejudice from deletion of cultivator name in 7/12 extract was disposed of as the same issue was already adjudicated and rejected by a Division Bench judgment, rendering the present petition redundant.
The public interest litigation is disposed of.
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.
41.17pil
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.41 OF 2017
Ramdas s/o Babarao More, Age: 28 years, Occu: Agri., R/o. Nila, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Mr P. S. Anerao, Advocate for petitioner; Mr K. N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondents
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND A. G. GHAROTE, JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2019
ORAL ORDER:
The present public interest litigation is aimed at a grievance that
as per the communication issued by respondent No.3 – Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 1st October, 2008 in view of the
41.17pil
(2)
provisions under Maharashtra Revenue Code modified to the extent of deletion of the name of the cultivator in 7/12 extract, causes some prejudice to the petitioner in particular and to the public in general. The very issue was raised in another Public Interest Litigation No.10 of 2015 and by way of detailed judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 3rd July, 2019/8th August, 2019, to which one of us (Prasanna B. Varale, J) was party, is considered and the Division Bench of this Court found no reason to entertain the public interest litigation.
(A. G. GHAROTE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
sjk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the deletion of the cultivator name in 7/12 extract under Maharashtra Revenue Code, as per Divisional Commissioner's order dated 1st October 2008, causes prejudice to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Public Interest Litigation No.10 of 2015Relied on¶14
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramdas s/o Babarao More
The State of Maharashtra
The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad
Prasanna B. Varale
A. G. Gharote
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
