This review petition challenged a 2004 order recording consent terms between parties regarding land allotment. The court held that mere filing of an application did not create a legal right and noted the prior outcome at the Supreme Court.
The review application is dismissed.
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.
71-RPW-24-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 24 OF 2024 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6010 OF 2002 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1992 OF 2024
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 24 OF 2024
Mahesh Nathuram Pilankar ...Petitioner Versus Ramakant Narayan Pilankar ...Respondent
Mr Rakesh Bhatkar, i/b Mohit Dalvi, Advocate for the Review Petitioner.
Mr R. S. Pawar,A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.
Mr Sachindra Shetye with Dhanashri Mondkar, for Respondent No1.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 10th JUNE 2024
P.C.:
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL
Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.06.11 10:57:30 +0530
22.12.2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6010 of
2002 disposing of the Petition by recording the Consent Terms
1 of 3
Arun Sankpal
71-RPW-24-2024.doc
arrived at between the parties thereto. The Consent Terms indicate that the dispute regarding the land which was the subject matter thereto, has been resolved by the Petitioner therein being permitted to retain 0.67 R and Respondent No. 2 being permitted to retain 0.40 R of land.
for allotment of land would not given any right to the Petitioner.
2 of 3
Arun Sankpal
71-RPW-24-2024.doc
position. That apart it is an admitted position that order dated 22.12.2004 by which the Petition was disposed of in light of the Consent Terms was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP No. 34200 of 2012, which came to be dismissed on 6.2.2015.
has been demonstrated on record to my satisfaction, on account of which even if the Petitioner was not a party to Writ Petition No. 6010 of 2002 the same would not constitute any ground for review of the order passed therein.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
3 of 3
Arun Sankpal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mere filing of an application for land allotment creates a valid legal right at the time of a consent order.
Whether the documents filed by the petitioner demonstrate a valid position challenging the impugned order of 2004.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SLP No. 34200 of 2012Referred¶32
Mahesh Nathuram Pilankar
Ramakant Narayan Pilankar
AVINASH G. GHAROTE
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
