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

Roshan S/O Saheshram Badge vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur And 2 ... on 5 December, 2018

Author: Z.A.Haq

Bench: Z.A.Haq

 Judgment                                    1                                 wp8287.18.odt




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


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 8287/2018


          Roshan S/o Saheshram Badge,
          Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
          R/o. Wadegaon, Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia
                                                                       .... PETITIONER

                                       // VERSUS //

 1]       The Additional Commissioner,
          Nagpur Division, Old Secretariat Building,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001

 2]       Sub Divisional Officer, Tirora,
          Tah. Tirora, District Gondia

 3]       Sarpanch / Secretary,
          Gram Panchayat, Wadegaon,
          Tah. Tirora, District Gondia
                                                         .... RESPONDENT(S)
  ___________________________________________________________________
               Shri I.N. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner
            Shri V. P. Maldure, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
         Shri A.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 (caveat)
  ___________________________________________________________________


                               CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
                               DATED : 05/12/2018



 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1] Heard Shri I.N. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri V.P. Maldure, learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A.R. Bhoyar, Advocate who has put in appearance for the respondent no. 3 on caveat. ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:25:38 :::

  Judgment                                  2                                wp8287.18.odt




 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.



 3]               By the order passed on 09/08/2018, the learned Sub -

Divisional Officer directed that the encroachment made by the present petitioner on the Government land be removed. This order is challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner in appeal. While issuing notice of the appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner granted ex-parte interim order staying the execution of the order passed by the SDO. After the respondent no. 3 put in appearance and after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Commissioner has vacated the interim order by the impugned order.

4] Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the interests of justice would be sub-served by passing the following order:-

ORDER
a) The impugned order is set aside.
b) Interim order granted by the Additional Commissioner on 01/10/2018 is restored.
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:25:38 :::
  Judgment                                   3                                wp8287.18.odt




                  c)           The learned Additional Commissioner is directed to

dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner till 30/01/2019.

The parties undertake to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Ansari ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:25:38 :::