Not inclined to entertain the writ petition as the matter appears to be a dispute between private parties regarding land purchase; writ jurisdiction not appropriate for issuing directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 1001-wp 10248-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10248 OF 2021
Ashok Babasaheb Kawchat
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
.. Respondents
Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. G. L. Deshpande, AGP for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 16th September, 2021.
PER COURT:-
. We have heard Mr. Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioner.2.We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It appears that,
it is the dispute between the private parties. The petitioner has agreed
to purchase the land from erstwhile owner and has paid earnest
amount. The petitioner further submits that the pandan road is
included in the land. According to the petitioner, enquiry is required to
be conducted by measuring the land.
3. The petitioner is at liberty to take steps as may be permissible
under law.
1 of 2
2 1001-wp 10248-2021.odt
4.In writ jurisdiction, it will not be possible for us to issue any
directions.
5. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. All contention of the parties
are kept open.
( R. N. LADDHA )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
2 of 2
Ashok Babasaheb Kawchat
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court