Disposed

Karan Hariram Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC17 Apr 2024WP/2247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Tahsildar's order passed without hearing the petitioner, who was told matters would be heard on a later date. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh after granting hearing and opportunity to file reply.

What the court decided

AI extract

Karan Hariram Solanke vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:6719

¶2

933-cwp-2247-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2247 OF 2024

¶4

Karan H. Solanke ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. V.B. Bhise for the Petitioner. Ms Mrunal Naik, AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2024.

¶7

PC:-

¶8

Heard.

¶9

This Petition takes exception to the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Akot in Rev.Case No. MNL-37/Kemlapur/431/2023-24.

¶10

In the aforesaid proceedings, notice was issued to the present Petitioner and he was asked to appear on 26.02.2024.

¶11

According to the Petitioner, on 26.02.2024 when he visited the office of the Respondent No.2/Tahsildar, he was informed that all the matters listed on that day would be taken on 01.03.2024 and even notice was published to that effect on the notice board. According to the Petitioner, he thus left the office of Respondent No.2/Tahsildar. According to the Petitioner, when he again visited the office of Respondent No.2/Tahsildar on 01.03.2024, he was informed that the order is already passed on 27.02.2024.

1/2

Dinesh S. Sherla

933-cwp-2247-24.doc

The learned AGP for the Respondents/State, on instructions submits, that the notice (page 19) was published. However, according to the learned AGP for the Respondents/ State, the said notice was not in relation to the present proceeding.

¶16

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order impugned came to be passed without hearing the Petitioner.

¶17

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Akot shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶18

Needless to say that, the Respondent No.2/Tahsildar, Akot shall grant opportunity of hearing including filing of reply, if any, to the Petitioner before passing fresh order.

¶19

The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶20

Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶22

2/2

¶23

Dinesh S. Sherla

¶24

Signed by: DINESH SHERLA Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/06/2024 13:37:27

Karan Hariram Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Karan Hariram Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jai S/O Narayan Chipate and Another vs Sulbha Wd/O Uttamrao Deokar and Others

Girish Ramchandra Udeg, Thr. P.O.a., Father, Ramachandra Babaji Udeg vs Bhairavi W/O. Girish Udeg, Thr. P.O.a., Sister, Ku. Sangeeta Imane

Vishwas S/O Mahadeo Chitare vs Gopal S/O Janrao Kankirad

Shri. Manohar Govindra Vyavhare and Others vs Laxman Mahadeo Vadki and Others

Smt. Jayshri Wd/O. Rajendra Karpekar and Another vs Shri Amba Devi Sansthan, Amravati by Turstees, Smt. Vidya Vijayrao Deshpande and Others

Parker Hannifin Corp. Parker Hannifin India Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur Thr. Unit Head, V.V. Ghodvaidya vs Roshankumar Rameshrao Rokade