Disposed

Rohitraj Bhagchand Bajaj and Others v. Rahul Suresh Santani and Others

Bombay HC8 May 2024WP/2387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a dispute over a land locked plot, the court disposed of the petition after parties reached an agreement to pursue the matter before the Additional Commissioner instead of pressing the revision before the Minister.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; parties directed to appear before Additional Commissioner on 15.05.2024 to decide pending revision application within one month.

Rohitraj Bhagchand Bajaj and Others Vs Rahul Suresh Santani and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:5695

¶3

1.wp.2387.2024.odt

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2387 OF 2024

¶6

Rohitraj Bhagchand Bajaj and others .Vs. Rahul Suresh Santani and others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Court's or Judge's Order

¶9

Shri Adarsh Baheti, Advocate for petitioners. Ms Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Sangeeta Jachak, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 6/State.

¶10

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 08/05/2024

¶11

This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Minister granting stay to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 13.03.2024 and the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Additional Collector.

¶12

The Tahsildar while passing the order dated 19.06.2023 on the application preferred by the respondent No.1 to provide approach way to his land since his land is a ‘land locked plot’, allowed the said application, relying upon Regulation 3.3.14 relating to ‘land locked plot’.

¶13

The said order was carried in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.12.2023.

¶14

C.L. Dhakate

¶15

2 1.wp.2387.2024.odt

¶16

The petitioner thereupon, filed another appeal before the Additional Collector who set aside both the orders i.e. the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 19.06.2023 and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.12.2023. The Additional Collector further directed the parties to maintain status quo.

¶17

The order of the Additional Collector was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in a writ petition namely Writ Petition No.916 of 2024 at the instance of petitioners, wherein, this Court stayed the order to the extent directing the parties to maintain status quo. However, as far as the remand is concerned, that part of the order was not stayed by this Court.

¶18

Thereafter, the respondents approached to the Additional Commissioner raising a challenge to the order of the Additional Collector. The Additional Commissioner thereupon, stayed the implementation of the order of the Additional Collector dated 25.01.2024.

¶19

Subsequently, on next date, the Additional Commissioner on pointing out the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by this Court in Writ petition No.916/2024 vacated the stay and kept the matter pending for decision in view of

¶20

C.L. Dhakate

¶21

3 1.wp.2387.2024.odt

¶22

the pendency of the writ petition, vide order dated 13.03.2024.

¶23

The respondents thereafter approached to the Hon’ble Minister on the same day i.e. on 13.03.2024 by way of filing a revision application and the Hon’ble Minister passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 granting stay to the order of the Additional Commissioner as well as the order passed by the Additional Collector. Hence, this petition.

¶24

The matter was heard at length and during the course of hearing, both the parties have arrived at an agreement to pursue the matter before the Additional Commissioner and not to press the matter before the Hon’ble Minister.

¶25

In that view of the matter, the respondent has filed a pursis dated 08.05.2024, stating therein that, he will not press the proceeding before the Hon’ble Minister and would withdraw the same.

¶26

In the circumstances, as the proceeding is pending before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner appears to have misinterpreted the order of this Court dated 07.02.2024 in a way there is a

¶27

C.L. Dhakate

¶28

4 1.wp.2387.2024.odt

¶29

stay to the proceeding before him, I am of the opinion that, the purpose would be served if the Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the revision application pending before him within one month from the date of appearance of the parties. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms :

¶30

The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are directed to remain present before the Additional Commissioner on 15.05.2024 at 12.00 noon. Thereupon, the Additional Commissioner shall decide the revision application at the earliest and in any case, within one month from the date of appearance of the parties, after hearing of both the parties.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

C.L. Dhakate

Rohitraj Bhagchand Bajaj and Others v. Rahul Suresh Santani and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitraj Bhagchand Bajaj and Others v. Rahul Suresh Santani and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadulla Khan Abdulla Khan Vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Vilaschandra B. Agrawal Vs Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Others

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola Thr. Manager, Vimlesh Shyamsunder Pande Vs Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Ors.

General Secretary, Hitavada Shramik Sangh, Nagpur Vs General Manager, the Hitavada Press, Nagpur and Another

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Others Vs Bhaskar Devidas Wankhede and Others

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Others Vs Bhaskar Devidas Wankhede and Others