Disposed

Bhavna Madhukahar Nagvekar @ Tanushree Tushar Teli Pednekar and Anr., v. Vithu Madhukar Nagvekar and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Jun 2021MCA/10/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa addressed a writ petition concerning alleged violation of natural justice during revenue revision proceedings. The court accepted the revisional authority's assurance to provide notice for additional grounds and disposed of the petition, directing parties to appear before the authority by July 19, 2021.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of accepting the statement of the learned Advocate General.

Bhavna Madhukahar Nagvekar @ Tanushree Tushar Teli… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1122 OF 2018

¶4

VITHU MADHUKAR NAGVEKAR AND ANR. … Petitioners VS

¶5

THE SECRETARY (REVENUE), GOVT. OF GOA AND 4 ORS. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. Kamat, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. T. Gawas, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. A. Sardessai, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.

¶8

Coram : M. S. SONAK, J Date : 30^th June 2021

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General appears along with Mr. T. Gawas, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Sardessai, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

¶11

Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners submits that in this case the Petitioners have not been furnished with the memo of revision petition and therefore, the Petitioners, were unable to respond to the notice by which certain orders made in LRC in their

¶12

¶13

favour were sought to be revised.

¶14

The learned Advocate General makes a statement that the revisional powers are being exercised based on the Note dated 08.08.2018 submitted by the Collector. He states that in case any further grounds other than those set out in the said Note are proposed to be taken, then the proper notice will be given to the Petitioners so that they can respond to the additional grounds.

¶15

In the affidavit filed in this matter by Under Secretary (Revenue), it is stated that the Note of the Collector dated 08.08.2018 was itself considered as Revision Application and further the copy of such Note has already been furnished to the Petitioners.

¶16

According to me, having regard to the statement in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary (Revenue) as also the statement today made by the learned Advocate General, the grievance of the Petitioners as regards violation of principles of natural justice or inadequate opportunity to meet with the precise case in the revision stands substantially redressed. The learned Advocate General has made out clear that if any additional grounds are proposed to be considered by the revising authority, will give advance notice to the Petitioners about the same so that they are in a position to respond to such grounds. This statement is accepted and the revisional authority will

¶17

¶18

have to act accordingly.

¶19

This petition is disposed of by accepting the aforesaid

¶20

statement.

¶21

The parties to now appear before the revisional authority i.e. Secretary (Revenue) on 19^th July 2021 at 11.30 a.m. and file authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

The Misc. Civil Application does not survive and the same is

also disposed of.

M. S. SONAK, J.

at*

TARI AMRUT NAGESH Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2021.07.01 12:25:52 +05'30'

Bhavna Madhukahar Nagvekar @ Tanushree Tushar Teli Pednekar and Anr., v. Vithu Madhukar Nagvekar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavna Madhukahar Nagvekar @ Tanushree Tushar Teli Pednekar and Anr., v. Vithu Madhukar Nagvekar and Anr.

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

Cynthia Almedia @ Chirstina Almeida, Thr. Poa, Gajendra Singh and Anr., Vs the Goa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Thr. Its Managing Director.

Babuso M. Naik and Anr., Vs Manohar M. Naik.

Canara Bank, Rep. by Its Aut. Sign, Geetha Yashodhar Vs State of Goa, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Shivam Kamat., Vs Kodewprk United Llp, Thr. Its Designated Partner, Judah Fernadnez.

Ashish Isani Vs Rosy Conceicao Rodrigues and 2 Ors.

Asmat Khan Gafar Khan and Anr., Vs Madina Masjid Trust and 2 Ors.