Quashed

Ganpat Marya Gaikwad (Deceased through LRS)1.1.BHAGWAN Ganpat Gaikwad and Ors. v. Jomi Ganpat Bhoir and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2022WP/2305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order quashes the Tribunal's order dismissing a Restoration Application due to non-prosecution. Setting aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2021, the Court allows the restoration, restores the Revision Application to the Tribunal file, and directs disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Restoration Application allowed; Revision Application restored to Tribunal file for disposal within six months.

Ganpat Marya Gaikwad (Deceased through LRS)1.1.BHAGWAN… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

16A.WP.2305.21.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2305 OF 2021

¶6

Ganpat Marya Gaikwad (deceased through legal
heirs) Bhagwan Ganpat Gaikwad and Ors...Petitioners

¶7

 Versus

¶8

Jomi Ganpat Bhoir and Ors...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Omkar G. Nagwekar for Petitioners

¶10

None for Respondents

¶11

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:DECEMBER 20, 2022.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Nagwekar, learned Advocate for Petitioners.

¶14

2. Perused the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Learned President,

¶15

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶16

3. When the Petition was heard earlier, this Court had passed the

¶17

following order on 30.06.2021.

¶18

“ 1. The Petitioners are directed to deposit costs of Rs.25,000/within a period of six weeks from today. After deposit of the costs by the Petitioners, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 23^rd August, 2021 .”

¶19

4. Mr. Nagwekar submitted that the order stands complied with and

¶20

costs have been deposited in this Court. Necessary endorsement is

¶21

found in the record of the case that the cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been
deposited on 08.07.2021.

¶22

1 of 3

¶23

Corrected / modified order as per Speaking to Minutes order dated 02.01.2023

¶24

16A.WP.2305.21.doc

¶25

5. The Restoration Application filed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal came to be dismissed for non prosecution since it was not attended by the Advocate appointed by him. The Tribunal held that it appears that Petitioner has lost interest in the matter and hence the application came to be dismissed. This is the sole reason given in the impugned order.

¶26

6. Perusal of the Writ Petition shows that admittedly there was some
delay on the part of the Petitioner, however, it cannot be termed to be
intentional since in ground 8(g) it is stated that the Petitioner being 75
years old, entirely relied upon the Advocate appointed by him and he
was completely unaware of the fact that the Restoration Application
was listed and dismissed on 03.02.2021. That apart, it is seen that the
dismissal of the application is in the middle of the Covid-19 Pandemic
period.

¶27

7. For the reasons mentioned in the Petition and compliance of the
above order wherein substantial costs as directed by the Court have
been paid by the Petitioner, the impugned order dated 03.02.2021
stands quashed and set aside. Restoration Application No.
RESTO/TNC/RAG/L-545/2016 stands allowed.

¶28

8. In view thereof, Revision Application No.

¶29

TNC/REV/RAG/28/2015 stands restored to the record and file of the
Tribunal.

¶30

9. Considering that the dispute between the parties is old, the

¶31

Corrected / modified order as per Speaking to Minutes order dated 02.01.2023

¶32

2 of 3

¶33

16A.WP.2305.21.doc

¶34

learned Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Revision Application
within 6 months from today. Petitioner shall appear before the
Tribunal on 02.01.2023 at 12:00 noon for seeking instructions.

¶35

10. Writ Petition is disposed.

¶36

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶37

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2023.01.02 KILAJE 17:33:55 +0530

¶38

3 of 3

¶39

Corrected / modified order as per Speaking to Minutes order dated 02.01.2023

Ganpat Marya Gaikwad (Deceased through LRS)1.1.BHAGWAN Ganpat Gaikwad and Ors. v. Jomi Ganpat Bhoir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Marya Gaikwad (Deceased through LRS)1.1.BHAGWAN Ganpat Gaikwad and Ors. v. Jomi Ganpat Bhoir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Capt. Derrick Vaz and Anr. vs Vikram Singh Ram Singh @ Vikram Ram Singh

Eversmile Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Manek Gajanan Koli and Ors.

Ajay Anand Samant and Ors. Vs Anand Nilkanth Samant and Ors.

Mihir Homes Enterprise LLP and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Mrs. Anita Arun Bhave Vs Mr. Shekhar Shankar Joshi

M/S. Aditya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohini Hotchand and Ors.