Disposed

Hajrabanu Abdul Sakur Chaudhari and Ors. v. the Additional Tahsildar , Alt, Pimpri-Chinchwad City and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2024WP/11321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners sought prohibition and quashing of a review notice issued by the Additional Tahasildar. The court directed the petitioner to participate in the review proceedings but granted a stay of three weeks on any adverse order passed during that period before it could be enforced.

What did the court decide?

Direction to participate in review proceedings; adverse order not to be given effect for 3 weeks from communication.

Hajrabanu Abdul Sakur Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

13.wp.11321.2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.11321 OF 2023

¶4

Hajrabanu Abdul Sakur Chaudhari & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Additional Tahasildar & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSHKAKASAHEBBHALERAO KAKASAHEBBHALERAODate:2024.03.20 15:41:17 +0530

¶8

Mr.Nitin Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w R.S. Pawar, AGP for State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶11

DATE : MARCH 19, 2024

¶12

P. C.

¶13

1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following

¶14

reliefs:-

¶15

"(a) this Hon'ble Court may, by way of Writ of Prohibition or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibit, prohibit the Additional Tahsildar, ALT, Pimpri Chinchwad, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune from proceeding with the Notice dated 21.07.2023 bearing No.Tenance Act/Review/SR/10/2023.

Utkarsh

Page 1 of 3

MARCH 19, 2024

13.wp.11321.2023.doc

(b) this Hon'ble Court may quash and set aside the notice bearing No.Tenance Act/Review/SR/10/2023. dated 21.07.2023 issued by the Additional Tahsildar, ALT, Pimpri Chinchwad, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune"

¶21

2. Despite these prayers, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner fairly stated that he would participate in the review proceedings before the Additional Tahsildar, ALT, Pimpri Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, District Pune bearing No. Tenancy Act/Review/SR/10/2023. He however submitted that in the event any order is passed by the said Additional Tahsildar (in the review proceedings) which is adverse to the Petitioner, the same ought not to be given effect to for a period of 3 weeks from the date of communication of the said order to the Petitioner.

¶22

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner we find that this request is a fair and reasonable one in the facts of the present case. Initially the Additional Tahsildar, ALT, Pimpri Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, had passed an order in favour of the Petitioner. That order is sought to be reviewed in the proceedings mentioned above. Since these are the peculiar facts of the present case, we direct

¶23

Page 2 of 3 MARCH 19, 2024

¶24

Utkarsh

¶25

13.wp.11321.2023.doc

¶26

that the Petitioner shall participate in the review proceedings before the Additional Tahsildar and if the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is adverse to the Petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of 3 weeks from the date when the said order is communicated to the Petitioner.

¶27

4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However there shall be no order as to costs. We may hasten to add that we have not opined on the merits of the review proceedings one way or the other and the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶29

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN,J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

MARCH 19, 2024

¶32

Utkarsh

Hajrabanu Abdul Sakur Chaudhari and Ors. v. the Additional Tahsildar , Alt, Pimpri-Chinchwad City and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajrabanu Abdul Sakur Chaudhari and Ors. v. the Additional Tahsildar , Alt, Pimpri-Chinchwad City 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

Phoenix Arc Private Limited Acting in Its Capacity as Trustee of Phoenix Trust Fy 14-13 Scheme-B vs State of Maharashtra

Oscar Infrastructure Private Limited and Another Vs Aparna Jagdish Wagh and Others

Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs the Concerned Authority State Tax

Idfc First Bank Limited vs the Tehsildar and Taluka Office

Patco Auto Service, Indian Oil Dealers vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Ors.