Remanded

Mahesh Vasant Mhatre and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2021WP/3545/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a revision order by the State Government as it ignored the application for condonation of delay, remitted the matter to the Hon'ble Minister for fresh consideration, granted status quo in suit properties, and listed parties within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; revision remitted to the Hon'ble Minister for fresh consideration with 12-week deadline; status quo ordered in suit properties.

Mahesh Vasant Mhatre and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp 3545.21.doc

¶2

Digitally signed byURMILA Urmila Ingale URMILA PRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date: 2021.08.03 17:58:51 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3545 OF 2021

¶5

Mahesh Vasant Mhatre and anr. …. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ….. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sumedha Rao a/w Ms.Rumana Bagdadi, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondents No.1 to 4 – State. Mr.Sandeep Shinde a/w Ms.Mayuri Karekar & Mr.Ravi Asabe i/b Ergo Juris, for Respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : M. S.KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE : AUGUST 3rd, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Issue notice to the Respondents. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Shinde waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.5. By consent, matter is heard forthwith.

¶11

Respondent No.5 fled Revision Application before the State Government challenging the order dated 25/03/2014 passed in Appeal by Deputy Director of Land Records, Konkan

¶12

1/3

¶13

wp 3545.21.doc

¶14

Division, Mumbai. The Revision was fled on 27/09/2020. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there is gross delay of 6 years in fling the Revision. It is not in dispute that the application for condonation of delay in fling the Revision was made by Respondent No.5 before the State Government. Having gone through the impugned order, it is seen that though the contentions regarding the delay in fling the Revision are stated, however, there is no consideration of the contentions and opposition thereto by the Petitioners that the explanation is not satisfactory and that the delay should not be condoned.

¶15

I fnd that in the impugned order, the aspect of delay has not been dealt with at all though application for condonation of delay was specifcally made by Respondent No.5. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The Revision is remitted back to the Hon’ble Minister to decide the same afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after duly considering the application for condonation of delay. Hon’ble Minister is requested to decide the Revision expeditiously and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from 11/08/2021. The Petitioners and Respondent No.5 undertake to appear before the State Government on 11/08/2021 at 3.00 p.m. along with the copy of this order. All contentions are kept open. It is made clear that

¶16

2/3

¶17

wp 3545.21.doc

¶18

parties shall maintain status-quo so far as the suit properties are concerned till the decision in the Revision.

¶19

4. Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶21

3/3

Mahesh Vasant Mhatre and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Vasant Mhatre and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Manoj Anil Nagargoje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salim Aslam Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Ashok Tayde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anjusha Satishchandra Kale Vs Satishchandra Purshottam Kale and Ors.

Smt. Parvati Shankar Jagtap (Since Decd.) through Her Lrs. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

M/S. Karan Janhavi Development Corporation Vs Nitin Raosaheb Patil