Disposed

Devilal Tejla Patle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2022WP/7028/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the denial of forest rights based on alleged delay in filing representation. The Court held no limitation exists and directed the Committee to consider the fresh representation on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation within four weeks; Committee directed to consider it afresh.

Devilal Tejla Patle and Others Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

915-wp-7028-2019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

915 WRIT PETITION NO.7028 OF 2019

¶4

DEVILAL TEJLA PATLE AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh D.
AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.G. Karlekar
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. R.N. Chavan h/f Mr. Deepak B.

¶7

Chavan

¶8

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI &

¶9

 S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

¶10

 DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2022

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1.By the present petition, the petitioners have made a
grievance that, their claim for forest rights as contemplated under the
provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, has not been considered by
the respondent no.4 on the ground that, there was a delay in filing
their representation.

¶13

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, there
is no provision in the said act mandating limitation for filing their
representation with the respondent no.4 within stipulated period. He
submitted that, petitioners are tribals and were not aware of the
intricacies of law, to lodge their claim after enactment of the said act.

¶14

1/2

¶15

915-wp-7028-2019.odt

¶16

3.Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, on
instructions submitted that, the respondent no.4 – Committee will
consider the representation of the petitioners as contemplated under
Section 6 r/w Rule 11 of the said Act afresh and on its own merits.
The said statement is accepted.

¶17

4.In view thereof, petitioners are directed to file their
representation with the respondent no.4 within a period of four weeks
from today. If such a representation is filed by the petitioners with
the respondent no.4 – Committee within a period of four weeks from

¶18

today, the respondent no.4 – Committee is directed to consider the
said representation as per the provisions of law and on its own merits.

¶19

5. Petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶20

 (S.G. MEHARE. J.)

¶21

Mujaheed//

¶22

2/2

Devilal Tejla Patle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devilal Tejla Patle 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

Sachin Khanderao Dhumale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devsthan Maruti Mandir Golangri Thr Its President Tatyasaheb Bhausaheb Kavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

The Education Officer Primary and Others Vs Balaji Madhavrao Kanole and Others

Akash Hanmant Irle Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Ramrao Dashrath Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anupama Deepak Gandhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others