Disposed

Vimal Baban Bhor and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2024WP/6663/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Commissioner's order under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The court noted an available second revision remedy, held the Model Code of Conduct does not bar quasi-judicial powers, and directed decision on revision/interim relief within four weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vimal Baban Bhor and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

24-wp-6663-2024.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6663 OF 2024

¶5

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signed by NIKITAKAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.05.08 16:49:21 +0530

¶6

Vimal Baban Bhor and Anr.… Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra Through The
Secretary, Revenue and Forest
Department and Ors.… Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr. Murlidhar Kale a/w
Ms. Bhakti Wast i/b Mr. Samir M. Suryawanshi for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Hamid D. Mulla AGP for the State-Respondent
No.1.

¶9

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED:MAY 8, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1.The impugned order is passed by the Commissioner in
exercise of power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioners had remedy of approaching
the State Government under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 by way of second revision application.

¶13

2.According to the petitioners, such revision is filed but the
application for interim relief was not considered due to Model
Code of Conduct. It is made clear that Model Code of Conduct
does not restrain quasi judicial authority from exercising quasi
judicial power.

¶14

¶15

24-wp-6663-2024.doc

¶16

3.Hence, Respondent No.1-Minister or the Secretary
authorized to be heard revision under Section 257 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or can decide either the
interim relief application or the revision application within four
weeks from today.

¶17

4. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶18

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶19

Vimal Baban Bhor and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vimal Baban Bhor and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milind Shankar Pathare Vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner and Anr.

Milind Shankar Pathare General Secretary of Taekwondo Federation of Maharashtra Vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region and Anr.

Ramdas Maruti Dhage Vs Sandeep Gulab Tambe and Ors.

Valeo India Pvt. Ltd, through Its Authorised Vs Ranjit Balu Hande

Rajesh Bhagwan Rade Vs Vinod Anandrao Mahadik

Narayan Bandu Shendge Decd Thru Lrs Nitin Mahadev Palkhe Vs Pandurang Kondiba Koli Since Decd Thru Lrs Namdev Pandurang Kulkarni