Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mahadeo S/O Arjun Wasnik vs The Additional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 17 September, 2019

Author: Rohit B. Deo

Bench: Rohit B. Deo

 1                                                                      wp3924of16.odt




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

                         WRIT PETITION 3924 OF 2016


 Mahadeo s/o Arjun Wasnik,
 aged about 63 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,
 r/o. Belmandal Tq. Karanja,
 Dist Washim                                                 ....... APPELLANT

          ...V E R S U S...


 1        The Additional Commissioner,
          Amravati, Division Amravati

 2        The Additional Collector, Washim

 3        The Sub-Divisional Officer,
          Karanja, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim

 4        The Tahsildar, Karanja
          Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim

 5        Prashant s/o. Devendra Ghule,
          aged about - adult, Occ. Service
          Dist. Washim, through P.O.H.
          Devendra s/o. Kisanrao Ghule,
          aged about adult, Occ. Agriculturist
          R/o. Belmandal, Tq. Karanja                        ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri A.M. Tirukh, counsel for petitioner.
          Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondents 1 to 4.
          Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for respondent 5.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CORAM:           ROHIT B. DEO, J.
          DATE:            17th SEPTEMBER, 2019.




::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019                                ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2019 21:48:23 :::
  2                                                          wp3924of16.odt


 ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard.

2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 By the order impugned, the Additional Collector, Amravati Division, Amravati has granted interim relief in the nature of stay to the order of the Additional Collector. 4 The issue involved pertains to right of way granted by the Tahsildar purportedly under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLR Code).

5 This order was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer who allowed the appeal under section 247 of the MLR Code. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was then challenged before the Additional Collector who allowed the appeal and this is how the controversy is before the Additional Commissioner in appeal 277/BND-54/Belmandal/ 2015-16. It is common ground that since the order impugned is an interim order, it would be appropriate if the first respondent is directed to decide the appeal ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2019 21:48:23 ::: 3 wp3924of16.odt in a time bound manner including the objection to the tenability of the appeal. The joint submission is reasonable. 6 The first respondent is directed to dispose of appeal 277/BND-54/Belmandal/2015-16 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the 1 st respondent on 26.9.2019.

7 It is clarified that every contention raised in this petition and in rebuttal, including the contention that the appeal is not tenable, is kept expressly open.

8 Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms.

JUDGE RSB ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2019 21:48:23 :::