Dismissed

Suhas Dwarkanath Kande v. Ashok Motilal Katariya and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Apr 2024IA/7888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order under section 84(c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was dismissed as an efficacious appellate remedy was available, despite a plea of breach of natural justice. Ad-interim relief continued for six weeks subject to filing appeal within four weeks; interim applications were disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on alternate remedy; ad-interim relief continued for six weeks subject to filing appeal within four weeks.

Suhas Dwarkanath Kande Vs Ashok Motilal Katariya and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:20154

¶2

44.7846.23 WP.docx

¶3

Iresh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7846 OF 2023

¶5

Ashok Motilal Katariya .....Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Thru. Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. and anr

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7888 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7846 OF 2023

¶10

Suhas Dwarkanath Kande ….Applicant

¶11

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶12

Ashok Motilal Katariya .....Petitioner

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State of Maharashtra Thru. Principal .....Respondents Secretary, Revenue Dept. and anr

¶15

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1470 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7846 OF 2023

¶16

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod IAS (Retd) ….Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶17

1/4

¶18

44.7846.23 WP.docx

¶19

Ashok Motilal Katariya

¶20

.....Petitioner

¶21

Vs.

¶22

The State of Maharashtra Thru. Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. and anr

¶23

.....Respondents

¶24

Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil for the petitioner in WP 7846/2023 Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vinayak Pandit a/w Mr. Indraraj Yadav i/b Mr. Ajinkya Udane (On VC) for intervener Mr. Ashutosh Rathod a/w Ms. Anjali Rathod for the Applicant in IA No. 1470/2024

¶25

Smt. S. S. Bhende AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2

¶26

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶27

DATE : 30^th APRIL 2024

¶28

P.C.

¶29

Learned APP raises a preliminary objection that the impugned order is passed under section 84(c) of The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Hence, the order is appealable.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is alternate remedy available, however, he submits that there is a breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India be invoked. He submits that the notice

¶31

2/4

¶32

44.7846.23 WP.docx

¶33

did not contain all the properties referred to in the order. Hence, there is a breach of principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, he relies upon decisions of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others¹ and Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others² .

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the impugned order is passed at the behest of the Minister. However, a perusal of the petition does not indicate any such pleadings. There cannot be any debate on the point that if there is breach of principles of natural justice, powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. The petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order. Hence, the points raised by the petitioner in the present petition can be raised before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is empowered to correct all the factual as well as legal errors. Hence, I do not see any valid reason to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed on the point of availability of efficacious alternate remedy.

¶35

1 (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 771

¶36

2 (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1

¶37

3/4

¶38

44.7846.23 WP.docx

¶39

Needless to record that the petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate alternate remedy, as permissible in law.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of ad-interim relief already granted by this Court to enable the petitioner to adopt appropriate legal remedy.

¶41

Since ad-interim relief was already granted by this Court on 30^th June 2023, the same shall continue for a period of 6 weeks to enable the petitioner to adopt appropriate legal remedy as permissible in law.

¶42

Needless to clarify that ad-interim relief shall continue for a period of 6 weeks from today, subject to petitioner filing appropriate appeal within 4 weeks from today.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶44

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, Interim Application No.

¶45

7888 of 2024 and Interim Application No. 1470 of 2024 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶46

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶47

4/4

¶48

Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2024 19:54:00

Suhas Dwarkanath Kande v. Ashok Motilal Katariya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas Dwarkanath Kande v. Ashok Motilal Katariya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Head Master, Dnyansagar Prashala, Solapur and Ors. Vs Shri. Ogsiddha Bhutali Janage and Ors.

Indrabai Balaram Patil and Ors. Vs Sitaram Pandu Katkari Decd Thru Lhrs and Ors.

Indrabai Balaram Patil and Ors. Vs Sitaram Pandu Katkari Decd Thru Lhrs and Ors.

Balu Nana Jadhav Vs Gadewarnagar Chs Ltd.

Shri. Jagdish Ramsharan Agrawal and Anr. Vs Maqsoodali Shaukatali Bage Khan and Ors.

Sudhir Suresh Chavan vs Priyanka Sudhir Chavan