Disposed

Sheshrao Baliram Thaokar v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred, Nagpur

Bombay HC10 Jan 2024WP/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a revisional order in an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act regarding diversion of rain water onto adjacent land. The High Court quashed both the revisional and original orders as findings below were not perverse, and remanded the application for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Orders of respondents No.1 and No.2 quashed; application directed to be decided afresh by respondent No.2.

Sheshrao Baliram Thaokar vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 934-151-24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 152/2024 Sheshrao Baliram Thaokar

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred and others

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. P.S. Tidke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Sagar Ashirgade, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶8

CORAM: N.R. BORKAR, J.

¶9

DATED : 23^rd JULY, 2024

¶10

This petition takes exception to the order dated 31.07.2023, passed by the SubDivisional Officer in Revision No. 04/MCA-23(2)/ 2022-23.

¶11

The respondent No.3 herein had filed an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are adjacent land owners. It is alleged that the petitioner had deliberately diverted the flow of rain water from his field towards the field owned by respondent No.3. It is alleged that said act of the petitioner is causing damage to the crops in her field. Thus injunction was sought.

¶12

The respondent No.2 by order dated 18.10.2022 thought it fit not to grant injunction but issued certain directions. The respondent No.3

¶13

2 934-151-24.odt

¶14

dissatisfied with the order of respondent No.2 filed the revision before respondent No.1. By the order impugned respondent No.1 has allowed the revision filed by respondent No.3.

¶15

Respondent No.2 while refusing to grant injunction has recorded certain findings. The said findings are not held to be perverse, while allowing the revision. However, considering the facts and circumstances instead of remanding the matter back to respondent No.1, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent No.2. The orders passed by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are quashed and set aside.

¶16

Respondent No.2 shall decide the application filed by the respondent No.3 afresh in accordance with law.

¶17

The petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶18

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶19

MP Deshpande

¶20

Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/08/2024 11:05:23

Sheshrao Baliram Thaokar v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshrao Baliram Thaokar v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred, Nagpur

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanju S/O. Bhuta Sakom vs the District Collector, Amravati and Others

Mohan S/O Sahebrao Deshmukh vs Chaya Shudhirrao Deshmukh

Suresh Wasudeorao Raut and Another vs Kisanrao Ramchandra Mali and Others

Sarala Tushar Tawri vs Rupchand Chimanlal Jain

M/S. Ambika Land Developers Nagpur Thr. Partner, Geeta Namdeorao Dhandale vs Rajpal S/O Laxman Raut and Another

Sumanbai W/O Natthuji Late and Others vs Prakash S/O Natthuji Dhapke