Quashed

Gangadhar Patilba Shejul and Others v. the State of Maharashtrea and Others

Bombay HC9 May 2024WP/2004/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the order dismissing a revision against a condonation of delay application passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records. The High Court held that the order was without reasons and liable to be quashed, remitting the matter for fresh consideration on merit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.03.2014 by Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad stands quashed and set aside. Case remitted to respondent No.5 to decide revision on merit within two months.

Gangadhar Patilba Shejul and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:10178

¶2

905-WP-2004-14.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2014

¶6

GANGADHAR PATILBA SHEJUL AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTREA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Altmas Shaikh holding for Mr. Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher AGP for Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mrs. M. L. Sangit Advocate for Respondents No.7 and 8 : Mr. N. L. Paithane holding for Mr. Anil S. Golegaonkar Advocate for Respondents No.10 to 14 : Mr. D. P. Palodkar

¶9

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 09-05-2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶12

Respondents had impugned the mutation entry before the Deputy Director of Land Records. It was case of the petitioners that, in fact, there was no delay, as entries were back dated. They had applied for condonation of delay as precautionary measure. Considering the facts, the District Superintendent of Land Records condoned delay and posted the matter for hearing. However, the petitioners have impugned the order of District Superintendent of Land Records condoning the delay before the Deputy Director of Land Records, who dismissed the revision and unnecessarily referred the order of this Court which has no concern at all with the matter, the Court passed the order dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners as alternate remedy is available.

¶13

905-WP-2004-14.odt

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar matter, this Court, on 17.04.2014, passed the order, by setting aside the order of Deputy Director of Land Records and send the matter to him for deciding the revision against delay condonation application on merit.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is without merit. The Deputy Director of Land Records just discussed the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1336 of 2014 ( Gangadhar Patilba Shejul and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others ), dated 13.02.2014. The Deputy Director of Land Records did not consider the impugned order and just passed a mechanical order. Therefore, it needs to be set aside and the matter needed to remit to him for deciding the revision challenging order of District Superintendent of Land Records, condoning the delay.

¶17

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents No.10 to 14 argued that the illegal entries have been taken back dated. Therefore, there was no delay. The officer who mutated the entries has been suspended.

¶18

Perused the impugned order.

¶19

It was a revision against the condonation of delay. The order is without reasons. The Deputy Director of Land Records simply

¶20

905-WP-2004-14.odt

¶21

¶22

referred the order of this Court mentioned above and without any reasons dismissed the revision. The order without reasons is no order in the eye of law. He ought to have decided the revision on merit. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 passed by respondent No.5 the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad stands quashed and set aside. The case is remitted to respondent No.5 Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad to decide the revision on merit by granting an opportunity to both sides.

¶23

It is clarified that he should not get confused with the order passed in Writ Petition No.1336 of 2014, dated 13.02.2014. He should decide the revision on its merit without influenced by the said order.

¶24

Both parties should appear before respondent No.5 the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, on 20.05.2024. Thereafter, he shall decide the revision within two months.

¶25

Since the parties are appearing, there shall be no fresh notice to them.

¶26

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶28

rrd

Gangadhar Patilba Shejul and Others v. the State of Maharashtrea and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Patilba Shejul and Others v. the State of Maharashtrea and Others

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

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Roadt Ransportation Corporation Nanded through Its Divsional Controller Vs Tulsabai W/O Shriram Chate and Ors.

Maharashtra State Roadt Ransportation Corporation Nanded through Its Divsional Controller Vs Tulsabai W/O Shriram Chate and Ors.

Anand Vyankatrao Walanke (Died) Thr Lrs Vyankatrao Bapurao Walanke and Ors. Vs the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Legal Officer, Aurangabad

Inspector General Border Security Force Stc Bsf Chakur Vs Baburao S/O Irappa Gangapure and Ors.

Ramesh Laxman Akkalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sadashiv Sopan Mate Vs the District Magistrate and Others