Disposed

Mrs. Anita Wd/O Damodar Madavi v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary for Revenue Department, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC5 Feb 2021WP/2360/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a member of Scheduled Tribe, sought direction to sanction land transfer application under Section 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Court noted earlier rejection allowed re-submission. Petitioner agreed to re-apply; court ordered Respondents to decide within twelve weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Response order to be passed within 12 weeks of re-submission. Petitioner to submit fresh application within 6 weeks.

Mrs. Anita Wd/O Damodar Madavi Vs State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

05.02wp2360 of 2019.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2360 OF 2019

¶5

Mrs. Anita Wd/o Damodar Madavi

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

¶9

Mr. N.B. Rathod, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ DATE : 5 FEBRUARY 2021

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The Petitioner had filed this Petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to sanction the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 within stipulated time. According to the Petitioner, as a member of Scheduled Tribe, she is desirous of selling the land to non-tribal and therefore under the provisions of Section 36A of the Code, permission was required, which is not being granted. During the pendency of the Petition, by order dated 9 September 2019, the Respondents have rejected the proposal. The Petitioner has challenged the said order by way of an amendment. Perusal of the order shows that the application is rejected not on merits but because

¶14

¶15

05.02wp2360 of 2019.odt

¶16

the proposal did not contain the particulars to ascertain whether the transfer was for bonafide use. The order itself has given liberty to the Petitioner to re-submit the application. That being the position, it is necessary to keep the Petition pending.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner will re-apply with necessary particulars within a period of six weeks from today. Considering the fact that the first application of the Petitioner was made in the year 2013, the Respondents will take a decision upon the Petitioner’s proposal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of its submission.

¶18

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

Lanjewar

¶20

Prashant Lanjewar

¶21

Digitally signed by Prashant Lanjewar Date: 2021.02.08 18:22:02 +0530

Mrs. Anita Wd/O Damodar Madavi v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary for Revenue Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Anita Wd/O Damodar Madavi v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary for Revenue Department, Mumbai and Another

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

Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, through Chairman, Shri Atul Gangadharao Ganyarpwar and 1 Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Co-Operation Marketing and Textile Department, Mumbai

Sushikshit Berojgar Abhiyanta Sanghatna Association, Thr. President, Anand Ajitkumar Jain, Gondia Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Public Work Department, Mumbai and Others

Abhishek Shrihari Deogade Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur through Member Secretary and Others

Late. Ku. Durga K. Banmeru Science College, Buldhana through Principal Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Rajkiran S/O. Shivram Bavre Vs Gram Panchayat Kawatha (Mahasala), Nagpur Thr. Sarpanch / Secretary and Another

Miss. Tejasvini Vishnu Koyare Vs State of Maha. Thr. Commissioner and Competent Authority State Common Entrance Test Cell, Mumbai