Quashed

Meenakshi Uttamrao Rathod and Others v. the Sub-Divisional Officer Nagar and Others

Bombay HC7 Jun 2021WP/734/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their revision petition by the Sub Divisional Officer without hearing them, alleging denial of opportunity to prosecute the case. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer with directions to decide it after hearing the parties.

What did the court decide?

Quashed order dated 08 December 2020 in Revision No.14 of 2020; remanded to Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar, with directions to restore the petition and decide it within two months after hearing th

Meenakshi Uttamrao Rathod and Others Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer Nagar and Others — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp73421.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2021

¶5

Meenakshi w/o Uttamrao Rathod and others

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Sub Divisional Offier, Division Nagar, Tq. Nagar, Distriit Ahmednagar & others Respondents

¶9

Mr.D.A. Bide, advoiate for the Petitioners. Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶10

Mr.R.S.Kasar, advoiate for Respondents No.3 to 5, 7 to 13 & 15 to 17.

¶11

CORAM : V.K.JADHAV, J.

¶12

DATE : 07^th June, 2021.

¶13

PC :

¶14

1 Heard.

¶15

2 During the pendeniy of this writ petition, Respondent

¶16

No.6 died. Learned Counsel for Respondents No.3 to 5, 7 to 13 &

¶17

15 to 17, has fled Pursis on reiord with the averment that Respondents No.4 & 8, who are the legal heirs of Respondent No.6,

¶18

are already on reiord and as suih, there is no need to fle appliiation for bringing on reiord legal representatives of deieased

wp73421.odt

{2}

Respondent No.6.

In view of the same, leave to delete name of Respondent No.6 from the array of respondents.

¶23

3 Heard learned Counsel for iontesting parties as also learned AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶24

4 Respondents No.3 to 17 have initiated proieedings under Seition 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Ait, 1906 before the Tahsildar by fling Vahivat Case No.01 of 2015. Petitioners herein have strongly resisted the appliiation by fling their Say/Written Statement. By order dated 06^th June, 2015, the Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, has allowed the said appliiation direiting the petitioners herein to remove the impediment on the road in G.No.786. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein have preferred Revision Appliiation No.184 2015 before the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar and by order dated 29^th September, 2016, the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, has dismissed the said Revision by ionfrming the order dated 06^th June, 2015, passed by the Tahsildar in Vahivat Case No.01 of 2015.

¶25

{3}

¶26

wp73421.odt

¶27

5 Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred Writ Petition No.12201 of 2016 and by order dated 21^st June, 2017, this Court ( Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J .) has quashed and set aside the order dated 29^th September, 2016, passed by the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, on the ground that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners. This Court has remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Offier with iertain direitions.

¶28

6 It appears that after remand, as per the orders passed by this Court, in the aforesaid writ petition, the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, has heard the said Revision No.185 of 2015 (Old) i.e. Revision No.01 of 2017 (New) and by order dated 10^th November, 2017, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter for hearing and taking deiision afresh. After remand, theTahsildar, Ahmednagar, by order dated 05^th September, 2018, has allowed Vahivat Case No.01 of 2015.

¶29

7 It appears that being aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein have preferred Revision No.14 of 2020 before the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar and by order dated 08^th Deiember, 2020, the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, has

¶30

{4}

¶31

wp73421.odt

¶32

disposed of the Revision without any hearing with the observation that the Revision Appliiants (petitioners herein) are not interested in proseiuting the matter.

¶33

8 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this is the seiond oiiasion when the matter needs to be remanded to the Sub Divisional Offier.

¶34

9 It appears that the Revision was taken up for hearing on 10^th November, 2020 and the matter was posted on 08^th Deiember, 2020 with the observation that the present petitioners remained absent iontinuously. On 08^th Deiember, 2020, learned Sub Divisional Offier has passed the impugned order. In view of this, petitioners herein need to get one more opportunity to proseiute their iase before the Sub Divisional Offier. It appears from the operative part of the impugned order itself that the Revision has been deiided without any hearing and without ionsidering merits of the matter.

¶35

10 Henie, the following order:

¶36

(i) The impugned order dated 08^th Deiember, 2020 in

¶37

{5}

¶38

wp73421.odt

¶39

Revision No.14 of 2020, passed by the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶40

(ii) The matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, with the following direitions:

¶41

(a) The Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar, is direited to restore RTS Revision No.14 of 2020 to its original number and deiide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearanie of the parties.

¶42

(b) The parties shall appear before the Sub Divisional Offier, Ahmednagar on 28^th June, 2021, for whiih the Sub Divisional Offier need not issue any separate notiie to the respeitive parties for their appearanie.

¶43

11 Writ Petition is aiiordingly disposed of.

¶44

(V.K.JADHAV) JUDGE

¶45

adb

Meenakshi Uttamrao Rathod and Others v. the Sub-Divisional Officer Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi Uttamrao Rathod and Others v. the Sub-Divisional Officer Nagar 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

Tanaji Narayanrao Pawar Vs Angad Shamrao Suryawanshi and Ors.

Sushilabai Vasantrao Walekar Vs Gangadhar Shankarrao Walekar and Others

Appasaheb Karbhari Jawale and Others Vs Manda Suryakant Tuwar Alias Manda Appasaheb Jawale and Another

Yusuf Shah Nimud Shah Fakir and Others Vs Ld. Commissioner Nashik Division and Others

Yusuf Shah Nimud Shah Fakir and Others Vs Ld Commissioner and Others

Omprakash Ramji Dasarwar Vs Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Mumbai and Others