Partly allowed

Deepali Wd/O Vilasrao Pande v. State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC20 Oct 2021WP/839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging notices issued by the State of Maharashtra were heard. The court found the issues identical to a previous decision (W.P. No. 438 of 2021). The petitions were partly allowed; the notices were quashed, and matters were remanded for fresh consideration after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices quashed; matters remanded to respondent No. 2 and 3 for fresh consideration with opportunity of hearing within two weeks.

Deepali Wd/O Vilasrao Pande Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Judgment in WP 839.2021, 301.2021 & 302.2021.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 839 OF 2021

¶4

Smt. Deepali Wd/o. Vilasrao Pande
Aged 65 years, Occ : Business,
R/o. Ambapeth, Amravati,
Tehsil & District Amravati

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Maharashtra
In the Ministry of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 Through
Secretary.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

2. District Collector, Amravati

¶10

3. Tehsildar, Amravati, Tehsil & District Amravati

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 301 OF 2021

¶13

M/s. Vinayak Stones,
A Partnership Firm, Through its
Authorised Partner, Shri.Saket S/o. Ajay
Mehta Aged 30 years, Occ : Business,.. Petitioner
R/o.Vidyaniketan Colony, Court Road,
Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur, District
Amravati

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32, Through its
Secretary

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

2. District Collector, Amravati
3. Tehsildar, Achalpur, Tah. Achalpur,
District Amravati

¶18

PAGE 1 OF 3

¶19

Judgment in WP 839.2021, 301.2021 & 302.2021.odt

¶20

WITH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2021

¶22

Shri.Ramkrushna Pandurangji Katre,
Aged 61 years, Occ : Business,
R/o.Gaurkeda Kumbhi, Tahsil Achalpur,
District Amravati

¶23

.. Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

1. State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32, Through its
Secretary

¶26

.. Respondents

¶27

2. District Collector, Amravati

¶28

3. Tehsildar, Achalpur, Tah. Achalpur,
District Amravati

¶29

Miss. Ramaa V. Kukday, Advocate for petitioners in all the petitions.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, AGP for respondents in W.P. No.839 of 2021.
Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondents in W.P. Nos.301 and 302 of 2021.

¶30

 CORAM:SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED:20/10/2021

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT(Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶33

learned AGP for all the respondents in respective petitions.

¶34

(2) Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶35

finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶36

PAGE 2 OF 3

¶37

Judgment in WP 839.2021, 301.2021 & 302.2021.odt

¶38

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioners in all these

¶39

petitions submits that the issues involved in these petitions are
identical with the demand involved in Writ Petition No. 438 of 2021,
decided on 28th September, 2021. Learned AGP appearing in
respective petitions agree. Hence, we pass the following order :

¶40

i. The petitions are partly allowed.

¶41

ii.The impugned notices are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶42

iii. The matters are remanded back to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within two weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioners before respondent Nos.2.

¶43

iv. The petitioners to appear before respondent No.2 – District Collector, Amravati on 26^th October, 2021 .

¶44

 Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶45

[ ANIL S. KILOR J. ]

¶46

[ SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.]

¶47

KOLHE

¶48

PAGE 3 OF 3

Deepali Wd/O Vilasrao Pande v. State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepali Wd/O Vilasrao Pande v. State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sanjay Surendrakumar Arora Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services and 5

Mr. Sunil S/O Nandalal Malviya Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and Another

Shri. Yogiraj Sushikshit Berojgar Nagrik Seva Saha. Sanstha Mary., Thr. President Ravindra Sapkal Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati

M/S. Vinayak Stones, Amravati, Thr. Authorised Partner, Saket S/O. Ajay Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Thr. Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Ramkrushna S/O Pandurangji Katre Vs State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Priyanka W/O Praful Mohate Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Town Planning Division, Mumbai and Others