Namdeo Laxmanrao Yeotkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Namdeo Laxmanrao Yeotkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 19 days in filing the restoration application condoned; restoration application allowed and writ petition restored to its original stage; writ petition disposed of with direction that it be treated as the petitioner's representation to be decided by respondent No. 2 in accordance with law within ten weeks, petitioner to communicate the order to respondent No. 2 within two weeks, and hearing to be granted to interested parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 19 days in filing the restoration application should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 19 days caused in filing the restoration application is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

The application for restoration of the writ petition is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original stage.

Key takeaways

The petition is directed to be treated as a representation of the petitioner, to be decided by respondent No. 2 in accordance with law within ten weeks from receipt of a copy of the order along with the petition; the petitioner is to communicate the order to respondent No. 2 within two weeks; an opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the interested parties.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ.), December 24, 2025 — Civil Application (CAO) No. 1072 of 2025 in Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 20251 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 4032 of 2025, Namdeo Laxmanrao Yeotkar v. The State of Maharashtra and ors. The Court condoned a 19-day delay in filing a restoration application and restored the writ petition to its original stage. On the petition, in which the petitioner sought directions for exchange of the property mentioned in the prayer clause and counsel conceded that no such request had been made to the respondent authorities, the Court directed that the petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner, to be decided by respondent No. 2 in accordance with law within ten weeks of receipt of the order along with the petition, with an opportunity of hearing to interested parties; the petitioner was to communicate the order to respondent No. 2 within two weeks. The applications and the petition were disposed of.

1 108cao1072.2025.

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

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1072 OF 2025 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 20251 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 4032 OF 2025

(Namdeo Laxmanrao Yeotkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors)

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - Mr. A.A. Kathane, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4/State.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

DATED : DECEMBER 24, 2025.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

For the reasons stated, the application for condonation of delay in filing restoration application is allowed. Delay of 19 days caused in filing restoration application is condoned. For the reasons stated in the application, the application for restoration of writ petition is also allowed. Writ petition be restored at its original stage. The applications are disposed of.

WRIT PETITION NO. 4032 OF 2025

Heard.

So far as writ petition is concerned, the request of the petitioner is that direction be given to the respondents to exchange the property mentioned in prayer clause. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that he has not made any request to the respondent authorities regarding exchange of the land. He further submits that the grievance would be redressed, if necessary directions are given to the respondents.

Be that as it may, the issue can be redressed by giving direction to

2 108cao1072.2025.

respondent No. 2. In the aforesaid background, we direct that present petition be treated as representation of the petitioner and it shall be decided by respondent No. 2, in accordance with law, within ten weeks from receipt of copy of this order along with the petition. The petitioner shall communicate the order passed today to respondent No. 2 within two weeks. Needless to mention that an opportunity of hearing be granted to the interested parties. Petition is disposed of.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J ) ( ANIL S.KILOR,J )

RS Belkhede, PS