Disposed

Ajay Deorao Rathod and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Jan 2020WP/188/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by traditional forest dwellers seeking recognition of their forest rights. The Court directed the competent authority to decide the claims expeditiously within nine months under the relevant Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to decide the claims on merits within nine months.

Ajay Deorao Rathod and Others Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 902-WP65-2020+.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

902 WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2020

¶4

Babu Bandhu Chavan and others.. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mrs. Pathan h/f T. W. Pathan, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl. G. P. for Respondents-State.

¶9

912 WRIT PETITION NO. 188 OF 2020

¶10

Ajay Deorao Rathod and others.. Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Mrs. Pathan h/f T. W. Pathan, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. R. Kale, A. G. P. for Respondents-State.

¶15

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶16

 DATED : 08th JANUARY, 2020.

¶17

PER COURT:-

¶18

.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners

¶19

are cultivating forest land for more than 30 to 35 years. The petitioners

¶20

have approached respondent No. 2 as per Section 11 (1) (c) of the

¶21

Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules 2008, however, no decision has been

¶22

1 of 2

¶23

2 902-WP65-2020+.odt

¶24

taken as yet.

¶25

2. The learned Addl. G. P. / A.G.P. accepts notice for all respondents in respective writ petitions.

¶26

3.In case, petitioners have approached respondent No. 2 claiming
rights as per Rules 6 and 11 of Rules, 2008, then respondent No. 2 after
following procedure as laid down under the said Act and Rules decide
the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and
preferably within a period of nine (09) months.

¶27

4. In case, petitioners are threatened with dispossession, petitioners may take appropriate steps in that regard.

¶28

5. Writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶29

( MANGESH S. PATIL )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

P.S.B.

¶31

2 of 2

Ajay Deorao Rathod and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Deorao Rathod and Others 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

Anusaya Tejerao Bhujbale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dyaneshwar Bajirao Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Muzammil Noman Mohammed Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Bhagwat Garkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sopan Purbhaji Chopade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Priti Sambhaji Gurlewad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Sub Divisional Officer Dharmabad