Dismissed

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev v. Collector of Stamps, Taluka Andheri, Office-Mmrda and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2019WP/450/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired police officer who voluntarily represented himself. The petitioner sought directions for declaratory orders regarding stamp duty and eviction of encroachers on his land, alleging false information had been provided against him. The court found the prayers were vague, the pleadings incomprehensible, and the matter b

What the court decided

AI extract

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs Collector of Stamps… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

7 wp 450 of 2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.450 OF 2018

¶4

Retd. ACP Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev …Petitioner
versus
Collector of Stamps, Taluka Andheri

¶5

and Ors.

¶6

…
Respondents

¶7

Mr. S.M.Shinde, Petitioner present in person.

¶8

Mr. A.L.Patki, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1, 6 and 8.

¶9

CORAM:AKIL KURESHI &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 10th JULY, 2019

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. The Petitioner is argued by the Petitioner in person. Apart from the leave

¶13

given the Certificate of competency by the Registry, he also claims to be a lawyer.
However, neither the drafting of the Petition, nor his submissions before us would

¶14

justify allowing him to pursue his own case. We are however, not concerned with this
aspect. Neither the Bench nor the Counsel for the Respondents was able to make any

¶15

concrete sense out of his pleadings. His prayer clauses are as vague as it could be and
reads thus :

¶16

“By this Hon’ble High Court Bombay Bench be pleased and to this Writ
Petition issue the ‘Mandamus Order’ in the nature of ‘Writ’ and please dispose this
Writ Petition for following ‘Order’.

¶17

SSP 1/3

¶18

7 wp 450 of 2018.doc

¶19

(a) Be pleased and directing to said Respondents No.1 to 8 that to entire
immovable property of the Petitioner i.e. to ‘Ram-Niwas’ inclusive place estimated 4’
x 3’ paid stamp duty on 25.11.2008 of Rs.21,500/- (Twenty One Thousand Five
Hundred Only) at the office of the Collector of Stamps, Taluka Andheri. And
therefore, to the Petitioner read the form in Collector of Stamps that already stamp
duty is paid by the Petitioner before this Ago, and therefore, not necessary to pay
stamp duty for inclusive place i.e. to 4’ x 3’. and thereupon which given ‘false’ &
‘frivolous’ information against the Petitioner that ‘not convinced’ from the office of
the Collector of Stamps is required ‘set’ ‘aside’ Under Article 100 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 i.e. to Exhibit “I” 53-57.

¶20

and

¶21

(b)The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.7 which carries his

¶22

occupation as ‘cobbler’ at the place of the Petitioner i.e. to 4’ x 3’ to said land the
Petitioner is land owner. And therefore, the Petitioner prevents to said Respondent
No.7’s for his illegal business place i.e. 4’ x 3’.

¶23

(c) Ad-interim relief to the Petitioner for disposal of this Writ Petition at

¶24

the time of final hearing for interim relief (a) to (b) and “natural justice” to the
Petitioner.”

¶25

2. Through his oral submissions, we could some how gather that he owns a

¶26

SSP 2/3

¶27

7 wp 450 of 2018.doc

¶28

land which is encroached by private Respondents. To evict them, he has already filed
a Civil Suit which is not making the progress to his satisfaction.

¶29

3.It is always open for the Petitioner to pursue said Suit and impress upon the
Court to grant hearing. However, in the present format, with prayers noted in this
Petition, no relief can be granted. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶30

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶31

( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

¶32

SSP 3/3

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev v. Collector of Stamps, Taluka Andheri, Office-Mmrda and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev v. Collector of Stamps, Taluka Andheri, Office-Mmrda and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghana Dilip Talekar and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat and 3 Ors.

Olympia Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Enhira Software (Exports) Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramayan Hiralal Vishwakarma Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Sra and 4 Ors.

Anita Rajesh Tiwari Vs the Chief Executive Officer and 3 Ors.

Nirmal Lifestyle (Kalyan) Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.