Quashed

Shri. Punja Bhau Shirsath and Ors. v. Prabhakar Baburao Shirsath and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2019WP/2868/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order of the Revisional Authority and the Tahsildar due to prima facie factual errors. The pending application was restored to file and remanded to the Tahsildar for a fresh decision within six months after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders and the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 04.10.2016 were quashed. The application was restored to the original file, and the Tahsildar was directed to decide it afresh within si

Shri. Punja Bhau Shirsath and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Baburao Shirsath and Ors. — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905.WP.2868.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2868 OF 2019

¶5

Shri. Punja Bhau Shirsath & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Prabhakar Baburao Shirsath & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sachin Gite, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶11

Mr. Pramod Narayan Joshi a/w. Mr. Nikhil Manohar Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20^th MARCH 2019

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This writ petition takes exception to the order dated

¶15

14.03.2018 passed by the learned Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Nashik in RCT/Revision/399/2016.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

¶17

the impugned order has been passed by the Revisional Authority without hearing the petitioners and also without referring to the written notes, which were placed on record by the petitioners. It is

¶18

agp 1/3

¶19

905.WP.2868.19.doc

¶20

submitted that the Revisional Authority has observed that even no written notes are placed on record by the petitioners. However, said observations/finding is contrary to the record in as much as written notes were placed on record. Therefore, he submits that matter may be remitted back to the said authority for denovo consideration.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 invites attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the aforesaid authority and submits that there were factual errors committed by the Tahsildar, Sinnar while allowing the application of the petitioners. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Tahsildar, Sinnar to reconsider the entire controversy and pass the fresh orders.

¶22

Keeping in view the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the opinion that, instead of entering upon the contentions raised on the merits, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and also the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 04.10.2016 since prima facie there appears to be some factual errors committed by the Tahsildar, Sinnar. In the light of the above observations, impugned order as well as order passed by the

¶23

agp 2/3

¶24

905.WP.2868.19.doc

¶25

Tahsildar, Sinnar, in Vahiwat/SR/10/2016 stands quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners i.e. Vaiwat/SR/2/2010 is restored to its original file. The Tahsildar, Sinnar is directed to consider the said application afresh and decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, including private respondents and decide the said application as expeditiously as possible, however, within six months from today. Till the application is decided afresh by the Tahsildar, Sinnar the parties are directed to maintain staus-quo as available on today.

¶26

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

( S.S. SHINDE, J. )

¶28

agp 3/3

Shri. Punja Bhau Shirsath and Ors. v. Prabhakar Baburao Shirsath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Punja Bhau Shirsath and Ors. v. Prabhakar Baburao Shirsath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakant Bango Pitambare Vs Parag Satishchandra Parekh and Anr.

Dinesh Chimanlal Joshi Vs the Gr. Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Deepti Parag Parikh and Ors. Vs the Honble Member and Anr.

Chilveri R. Krushna and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru CEO of Sra, Bandra E Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Sanjay Chimanlal Mehta Vs the Dist. Dy. Registrar of Co-Op. Soc. -2 and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Shridhar Gavas Vs the Dist. Dy. Registrar of Co-Op. Soc. -2 and Ors.