Dismissed

Hasmukh Ratanshi Thakkar v. Manoj Vishnu Vadolkar and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2024RPW/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a review petition challenging an order dismissing a writ petition that sought review of a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decision rejecting a condonation of delay application. The High Court rejected the review petition.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was rejected; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Hasmukh Ratanshi Thakkar vs Manoj Vishnu Vadolkar and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

01-RPW-128-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO.128/2024 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4967/2022 (D)

¶5

Hasmukh Ratanshi Thakkar ...Petitioner/Applicant Versus Manoj Vishnu Vadolkar and others ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Kailas S. Dewal i/b Yash Dewal and Sham Thakur, Advocates for the Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

¶8

ORDER RESERVED ON : 27^th SEPTEMBER, 2024 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19^th OCTOBER, 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

The application seeks review of the judgment dated

¶11

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.10.19 14:43:20 +0530

¶13

15/07/2024 dismissing Writ Petition No.4967/2022, which had challenged the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT”) dated 17/10/2019, upholding the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, which has occurred in filing of an appeal against the order dated 13/04/1970 by the Agricultural Land Tribunal (for short hereinafter “ALT”) before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was filed on 22/05/2017.

1 of 4

Arun Sankpal

01-RPW-128-2024.doc

Mr. Kailas Dewal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment dated 15/07/2024 needs to be reviewed on two grounds (1) the applicant, had not participated in the proceedings before the ALT and somebody else was impersonating the applicant/landlord and (2) the applicant/landlord had no information about the order dated 13/04/1970 passed by the learned ALT, as he was not present and there was no communication thereafter regarding the order being communicated to the parties thereto, in spite of a direction, as contained in the said order.

¶18

Insofar as the plea of impersonation is concerned, in para 8 of the impugned judgment the same has been considered and turned down and that being the position, the same cannot be permitted to be raised again as a ground for review.

¶19

Insofar as the plea that the applicant/landlord was not aware of the passing of the order dated 13/04/1970 by the learned ALT, for which, reliance is placed upon the last para of the said order, which indicates the parties to be informed accordingly, first of all, there is no statutory obligation upon the authority to communicate the order to the parties. No such provision in the Bombay Tenancy and

2 of 4

Arun Sankpal

01-RPW-128-2024.doc

Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 has been brought to my notice, which indicates that there is a statutory duty cast upon the authority to do so. That apart, para 7 of the impugned order also records that the subsequent order fixing the purchase price, which also is dated 13/04/1970 records the admission on part of the landlord regarding the tenancy of the tenant on the tillers day and his intention to effect the sale-deed of the land in the name of the tenant, which, in itself is indicative of the fact that the applicant/landlord was not only present but was aware of the proceedings in question before the learned ALT and its decision.

¶24

Though reliance is placed upon Maruti Namdeo Gade Vs. Dattatraya Vishnu Maval 1975 SCC OnLine Bom. 118 to contend that the words “date of the order” could be properly construed as the date from which the parties were fixed with the notice of the order, however, in view of the position, as considered in the judgment sought to be reviewed, which holds and records the presence of the landlord on the date of passing of the order itself, the same would not be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the applicant. As already recorded, the presence of the landlord in the proceedings has been duly recorded by the ALT in the order dated 13/04/1970 and in view

3 of 4

Arun Sankpal

01-RPW-128-2024.doc

of what has been held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another (1982) 2 SCC 463 as quoted in para 5 of the judgment under review, in my considered opinion, no ground for review is made out. The review petition (application) is, therefore, rejected. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶30

4 of 4

¶31

Arun Sankpal

Hasmukh Ratanshi Thakkar v. Manoj Vishnu Vadolkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Hasmukh Ratanshi Thakkar v. Manoj Vishnu Vadolkar 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

Deoraj S/O Jethabai Gosar vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Ramaji S/O. Domaji Malode vs the Deputy Collector (Acquisition), Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur and Anr.

Abdul Sajid Abdul Samad and Another vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Devrao Ganpat More vs the State of Maha., Thr. the Collector, Buldhana and Others

Mohna Sharad Awari and Others vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Others

Rushi S/O Balwant Dadmal, Being Minor, Thr. Father, Mr. Balwant S/O Narayan Dadmal vs the Dy. Director/ Member Secretary the S.T.. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur