The single-judge bench dismissed two writ petitions for lack of locus standi. The petitioner, not being a party before the Tahsildar or the Minister, was barred from challenging orders regularizing encroachments by others on government land.
Writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1}
wp1729-22
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1729 OF 2022 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1737 OF 2022
Ajay Devidas Patil PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others
RESPONDENTS
Mr. Nitin S. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. W. Munde, AGP for respondent - State
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
DATE : 8th FEBRUARY, 2022
ORDER :
{2} wp1729-22
government land and orders of regularization of encroachments are passed in their favour, which are impugned in these petitions.
[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE
drp/wp1729-22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the regularization of encroachment on government land.
Whether the High Court should permit a writ petition filed by a non-party challenging orders passed in favor of encroachers.
Ajay Devidas Patil
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin B. Suryawanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
