Quashed

Sulabai Sopan Nevale and Ors. v. Subhash Maruti Gholap Since Deceased Throu. Legal Heir and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2024WP/2253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal revision order that set aside S.D.O. and A.L.T. orders without recording reasons. The High Court found the order unreasoned and unsustainable, set it aside, remitted the revision to the Tribunal for fresh decision within six months, and set aside orders passed on its basis.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; revision remitted to MRT Pune for fresh decision within six months; consequential orders set aside.

Sulabai Sopan Nevale and Ors. vs Subhash Maruti Gholap… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3-WP-2253-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2253 OF 2024

¶4

Sulabai Sopan Nevale & Ors. …. Petitioners V/s.

¶5

Subhash Maruti Gholap Since Decd. …. Respondents Thr. Legal Heir & Anr.

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.08.20 17:35:40 +0530

¶7

Dr.Uday Warunjikar i/b Mr.Siddesh Pilankar, for the Petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte a/w Mr.Samarth Sadavarte, for Respondent No.1.

¶8

Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3-State.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATE : 20^th AUGUST 2024

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

. The short point is involved in this Petition is as to

¶13

whether the impugned order can sustained, since it is unseasoned order.

¶14

The order impugned reads thus :-

¶15

ORDER

¶16

“Adv. B.B. Bhargude present for applicant in case No.P/VIII/4/2017 & P/X/8/2017. Nobody present for respondent. Revision allowed. S.D.O. order No. Ten/Apeal/14/2014, dated 01/09/2017 and order

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 2

¶18

3-WP-2253-2024.doc

¶19

of A.L.T. in TNC Case No. 32G/SR/36/2011, dated 11/08/2011 both set aside.

¶20

Remitted back to A.L.T. Haveli for fresh enquiry in the light of observations made in judgment.”

¶21

In order to ascertain, this is operative part of the order

¶22

the order by itself, the direction was given to place on record any such detailed order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune. No such order is shown to have been passed indicating reasons for allowing the Revision Application. The order impugned being not supported by any reason cannot sustained.

¶23

As a result of this, the impugned order is set aside. The proceedings bearing Revision Application No.P/X/8/2017, are relegated back to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for decision a fresh. Any order passed by the Authority on the basis of order impugned shall not sustain and such orders too stand set aside.

¶24

The Revenue Tribunal to decide this Revision within

¶25

a period of six months.

¶26

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 2

Sulabai Sopan Nevale and Ors. v. Subhash Maruti Gholap Since Deceased Throu. Legal Heir and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulabai Sopan Nevale and Ors. v. Subhash Maruti Gholap Since Deceased Throu. Legal Heir and Anr.

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

The Bombay Xavierian Corporation, Thru. Trustee Father Anthony Tascano vs Sarosh Abdullah Zakeria, Trustee Jama Masjid Nawayat Trust

Aalibai Balya Gaikwad Since Decd. Thr Legal Heirs vs Bhiva Kashinath Mhatre and Ors.

Clint Rodrigues vs Convent View Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. and Ors.

Santosh Raghunath Salunke vs the Principal Secretary Hsg. Dept Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Rukhminibai Pratishtan Mumbai Throu. Its Trustee Sanjay Ramchandra Gawande vs the Joint Charity Commissioner 2 and Anr.

Mr. Abhijeet and Pednekar vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation