Disposed

M/S Jayesh Infra Thr Its Partners Imtiyaz Khan Sardar Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC30 Jul 2021WP/3872/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Minority Subordinate Minister had no jurisdiction to stay the quasi-judicial order by exercising administrative powers, as it circumvented appellate remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, constituting an unwarranted and uncalled-for interference. The apology tendered by the official was accepted.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the respondents is dismissed; the Tahsildar passed an order for removal of the mutation entries; the writ petitions are disposed of with no costs.

M/S Jayesh Infra Thr Its Partners Imtiyaz Khan Sardar Khan… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

.. 1 ..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1019 WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2021

¶4

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4038 OF 2021 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3872 OF 2021

¶6

M/S JAYESH INFRA THR ITS PRTNERS IMTIYAZ KHAN SARDAR KHAN AND OTHERS .. Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .. Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.6731 OF 2021

¶11

M/S JAYESH INFRA, THR ITS PARTNER AMIT LAXMANRAO BHOSALE .. Petitioner

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .. Respondents

¶14

In both the matters :-

¶15

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr Prasad D. Jarare In-Charge GP for Respondents / State : Mr D.R. Kale

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶18

DATE : 30-07-2021

¶19

PER COURT : -

¶20

1.The entries made in the other rights column has been set

¶21

aside under the order dated 27-07-2021 passed by the Sub Divisional

¶22

Gajanan

¶23

.. 2 ..

¶24

Officer, Aurangabad. In view of that, the purpose of the writ petition
would stand sub-served. The order dated 27-07-2021 would take care
of the petitioners grievance.

¶25

2.In view of that, nothing would survive in the matter for
adjudication.

¶26

3.Under order dated 26-02-2021 we had sought for the
explanation from respondent no.2 as to how exercising administrative
powers he has stayed the quasi judicial order. The affidavit is filed by
respondent no.2. In para-7, respondent no.2 has tendered
unconditional apology at the same time we are not satisfied with the
explanation given by him justifying the exercise of his administrative
powers vis-a-vis staying the quasi judicial order.

¶27

4.The Hon’ble Minister is expected to act within the
purview of the powers vested upon him. A quasi judicial order passed
in favour of the party could not have been stayed by the Hon’ble
Minister circumventing the appellate remedies against the said order
as provided under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code. In the present case, the order passed by respondent no.2 in his
administrative capacity staying the quasi judicial order was
unwarranted, uncalled for and without jurisdiction and authority.

¶28

Gajanan

¶29

.. 3 ..

¶30

5. Respondent no.2 has tendered unconditional apology.

¶31

We accept the unconditional apology tendered by respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2 shall henceforth observe the principles of law and
refrain from interfering with the quasi judicial orders by exercising
administrative powers and shall deal with the quasi judicial orders
only in consonance with the provisions of the statute and rules
therein.

¶32

6.The appeal filed by the respondents is dismissed and the
Tahsildar also passed an order for removal of the mutation entries in
the other rights column which was passed after the stay was granted
by respondent no.2.

¶33

7.Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶34

8.In view of the disposal of writ petitions, civil application
stands disposed of.

¶35

9.Naturally, the orders passed are required to be
implemented. The petitioners may approach the authority for
implementation of the same.

¶36

[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Gajanan

M/S Jayesh Infra Thr Its Partners Imtiyaz Khan Sardar Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jayesh Infra Thr Its Partners Imtiyaz Khan Sardar Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Prakul Kulbhushan Annadhate Thr Legal Guardian Pravina Kulbhushan Annadate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayshri Dinkar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prataprao Rangnath Sawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tushar Devrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raghunath Govind Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Jayesh Infra Thr Its Partners Imtiyaz Khan Sardar Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others