Disposed

Virendrasingh Fattesing Shitole and Ors. v. Rajendra @ Anilkumar Jaysingrao Shitole and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2024WP/6895/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent no.1 sought withdrawal of an RTS revision application before the Additional Collector, Pune, to file a proper revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Leave was granted; the impugned order was quashed, the Sub Divisional Officer's delay-condonation order revived and the RTS appeal restored.

What the court decided

AI extract

Virendrasingh Fattesing Shitole and Ors. Vs Rajendra @… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3-wp-6895-2017.doc

¶2

varsha

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6895 OF 2017

¶5

Virendrasingh Fattesing Shitole and Ors

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

Rajendra@ Anilkumar Jaysingrao Shitole and Anr

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Sujay Gangal for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State.

¶13

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶14

DATED : 22^nd APRIL 2024

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.1 seeks

¶17

leave to withdraw RTS Revision Application No. 805 of 2015 filed before the Additional Collector, Pune, with liberty to file an appropriate Revision Application under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the State Government for challenging order dated 18^th March 2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune in RTS Appeal No. 506 of 2013.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the

¶19

Page no. 1 of 3

¶20

3-wp-6895-2017.doc

¶21

said prayer is made in view of the legal principle settled by this Court in Judgment and Order dated 28^th March 2024 in Writ Petition No. 12965 of 2023, in the case of Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe v Ashok Gajanan Suroshe and Ors¹ .

¶22

In view of the legal principle settled in the said decision, respondent no.1 is granted leave with liberty as prayed. It is clarified that if an appropriate revision application is filed within four weeks from today, respondent no.1 shall be entitled to seek the benefit of the pendency of the proceedings of RTS Revision Application No. 805 of 2015 and present petition for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid leave granted to respondent no.1, the impugned order dated 19^th September 2016, passed by the Additional Collector, Pune in RTS Revision Application No. 805 of 2015 is quashed and set aside.

¶24

Since, the impugned order is quashed and set aside, the order dated 18^th March 2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, Sub Division, Pune allowing delay condonation application filed by the Petitioners stands revived and hence, RTS Appeal No. 506 of 2013 stands restored.

¶25

1 Writ Petition No. 12965 of 2023, dated 28^th March 2024 Page no. 2 of 3

¶26

3-wp-6895-2017.doc

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits

¶28

that the petitioners will not insist on hearing of the RTS Appeal No. 506 of 2013 for four weeks from today.

¶29

It is clarified that I have not examined the rival contentions of the parties on merits. Hence, all contentions of all parties are kept open.

¶30

Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶31

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶32

Page no. 3 of 3

Virendrasingh Fattesing Shitole and Ors. v. Rajendra @ Anilkumar Jaysingrao Shitole and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Virendrasingh Fattesing Shitole and Ors. v. Rajendra @ Anilkumar Jaysingrao Shitole and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Rohit Dusad, Alias Ms. Pooja Khandelwal vs Rohit Ramkripa Dusad

Shri. Hanumant Mahadev Patil and Ors. Vs Special Recovery Officer, Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank Ltd.and Others.

Deepak Ramanlal Shah and Anr. vs Sunil Kantilal Shah and Ors.

Kailaschandra Babulal Deora and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Popat Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh G.P. and Ors.

Mansing Pandurang Kadam and Anr. Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Kadegaon, Sub-Div at Post Kadegaon, Tal Kadegaon Dist. Sangli and Ors.