Disposed

Basvanappa Shrimantappa Sarne v. the Hon'Ble Minister for Revenue and Forest Department and Others

Bombay HC8 Jan 2021CA/290/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a civil application where the applicant sought direction to the Tahsildar to decide on a grievance regarding obstruction erected on a path previously permitted by the court for transporting sugarcane.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar, Lohara to take decision on the applicant's application dated 24.12.2020 regarding obstruction on the permitted path. Stay application disposed. Time extended for two weeks.

Basvanappa Shrimantappa Sarne Vs the Hon'Ble Minister for Revenue and Forest Department and Others — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2021

¶3

IN

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.7743 OF 2017

¶5

Basvanappa s/o Shrimantappa Sarne,
Age : Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Jewali, Tq. Lohara,
District Osmanabad

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The Hon’ble Minister for Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶9

2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶10

3. The Additional Collector, Osmanabad, Collector Office, Osmanabad

¶11

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad

¶12

5. The Tahsildar, Lohara, Tahsil Office, Lohara, District Osmanabad

¶13

6. Chandrakant s/o Ramrao Patil, Age : Major, Occu. Agri., R/o Jewali, Tq. Lohara, District Osmanabad RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. A.P. Yenegure,
Advocate for the applicant
Mr. P.G. Borade, A.G.P. for the respondents/State
Mr. Sushant B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.6 (original
writ petitioner)

¶15

¶16

CA290-2021

¶17

CORAM :MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶18

DATE :08.01.2021

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, holding for Mr.

¶21

A.P. Yenegure, Advocate for the applicant, who happens to be the original
respondent No.6 in Writ Petition.

¶22

2.Learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar submits that this Court, by
the order dated 17.12.2020, passed in Civil Application No.8137 of 2020,
inter alia allowed the request of the applicant (original respondent No.6) to
use a path for transporting sugarcane along the path described in that order,
which includes the boundary of the land Gat No.241.

¶23

3.By way of this application, the applicant (original respondent
No.6) points out that the owner of the land Gat No.241 has now erected an
obstruction which makes it difficult to use the boundary as has been
permitted by this Court by the order dated 17.12.2020. He also points out
that the applicant has independently moved the Tahsildar, Lohara on
24.12.2020, making a grievance about such obstruction by the owner of the
land Gat No.241. Though the prayer in the present Civil Application seeks to
clear the obstruction so as to enable the applicant (original respondent No.6)
to use the way as has been permitted by the order dated 17.12.2020, the
learned Advocate for the applicant submits that since the owner of the land

¶24

¶25

CA290-2021

¶26

Gat No.241 is not party to the petition, he only would request a direction to
the Tahsildar to take some decision on his application dated 24.12.2020
whereby the applicant (original respondent No.6) has put a grievance
regarding erection of fencing by the owner of the land Gat No.241.

¶27

4.Mr. S.B. Choudhari, learned Advocate for respondent No.6
(original petitioner) submits that since the owner of the land Gat No.241 is
not party to the present petition, no order affecting his interest can be passed.

¶28

5.True it is that the owner of the land Gat No.241 is not a party to
the present petition and no order can be legally passed against his interest.

¶29

6.However, simultaneously one cannot overlook the fact that by
the order dated 17.12.2020, this Court has permitted the present applicant
(original respondent No.6) to pass along the boundary of the land Gat
No.241. Since he has now put a grievance before the Tahsildar about
erection of obstruction by the owner of the land Gat No.241, the request
being made by the applicant to issue a direction to the Tahsildar to take some
decision on his grievance is rather innocuous, more so would be necessary to
provide efficacy to the order passed by this Court on 17.12.2020.

¶30

7.The Tahsildar, Lohara shall take decision on the application of
the applicant (original respondent No.6) dated 24.12.2020 as early as
possible.

¶31

CA290-2021

¶32

¶33

8.Since by the order dated 17.12.2020, the applicant (original
respondent No.6) was allowed to use the way upto 31.12.2020, it appears
that because of the alleged obstruction by the owner of the land Gat No.241

¶34

he has not been able to bear the fruits of the order. Therefore, on oral
request on his behalf by learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar, the time is
extended for two weeks from today.

¶35

9. The Civil Application is disposed of.

¶36

[MANGESH S. PATIL]

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

npj/CA290-2021

Basvanappa Shrimantappa Sarne v. the Hon'Ble Minister for Revenue and Forest Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basvanappa Shrimantappa Sarne v. the Hon'Ble Minister for Revenue and Forest Department and Others

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

Kamalbai Sandipan Bhairat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Priyanka Santosh Gadekar Vs Sindhubai Navnath Choudhary and Others

Sayyed Hakim Sayyed Imam Died through Lrs Akhtarbee and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gauttam Sakharam Surywanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors,.

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Vishram Baisane Vs the State of Maharashtra