Quashed

Rukmini Tukaram Bhomkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2024WP/9111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a revision order dismissing a challenge to the condonation of a 29-year delay in filing an appeal against a Mutation Entry. The court found the plea unaddressed and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.05.2024 quashed; matter remitted to respondent No. 8 to decide within 8 weeks from 22.07.2024; Mutation Entry subject to final result of Collector's appeal.

Rukmini Tukaram Bhomkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

913-WP-9111-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9111 OF 2024

¶4

Rukmini Tukaram Bhomkar And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader And Ors ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. R.D. Soni, with Ranjeet H. Patil & Kalpana Chate & Sumit Nimbalkar, for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate, i/b Kaustubh Thipsay, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶7

Ms. Leena Sawant, for Respondent No.5.

¶8

Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 – State.

¶9

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 10^th JULY, 2024

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶12

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2024.07.10 19:38:00 +0530

¶13

The Petition questions the order dated 22.05.2024 passed in Revision, by which an order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (“SDO”), condoning the delay of 29 years in

¶14

filing of an appeal, challenging a Mutation Entry, which revision has been dismissed by the aforesaid order. A perusal of the

¶15

impugned order dated 22.05.2024 would indicate that the plea

1 of 2

Shubham Talle

913-WP-9111-2024.doc

questioning the condonation of delay has not been addressed at all and the proceedings are dismissed.

¶20

Neither learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,6 to 8, nor Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Ms. Sawant, appearing for the respondent No. 5 support the impugned order and rightly so for the reason that once a revision is filed before the respondent No. 8, it has to be decided on its own merits one way or the other.

¶21

This having not been done, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the respondent No. 8 on 22^nd July, 2024, without any further notice been required to be issued in that regard. The respondent No.8 shall decide the matter within a period of 8 weeks from 22.07.2024. The Mutation Entry shall be subject to the final result of the Appeal filed by the Collector.

¶22

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶23

2 of 2

¶24

Shubham Talle

Rukmini Tukaram Bhomkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmini Tukaram Bhomkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Intec Capital Limited Thr. Its Authorized Representative Vijay C. Gupta vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Pandurang Sankhe vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Konkan and Ors.

Prashant Waman Bhoir vs Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai and Ors.

R K Structures Private Limited and Ors. vs Urban Infrastucture Real Estate Fund a Company and Anr.

Alap a. Ghosh and Anr. vs Santacruz Gardn Crest Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. and Ors.

Chanbasappa Basavrajendra Modi Since Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors. vs Shamrao Bali Patil