SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Deepak Karlekar, S/o. Late Shri Shankar Rao Karlekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's grievance involves land mutation disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding dismissal of applications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural flaws in appeals. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final directive to file appeal correctly and time-bound. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :—
(ii) Pass any other and further orders and or directions as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iii) Allow this petition with costs.”
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is having a dispute with his brother respondent No. 4 Chandra Shekhar in respect of the property situated at Village Sundersi, Tehsil Polaykalan, District Shajapur and his brother without
The court affirmed that procedural fairness requires notice before dismissal for delay in appeals, emphasizing jurisdiction must align with correct statutory provisions.
Deemed consent applies when heirs benefit from a mutation order and remain silent, barring later challenges after significant delays.
The court established that revisional authority cannot interfere with interlocutory orders lacking sufficient reasoning, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, the elastic nature of 'sufficient cause', and the need to consider the conduct, behaviour, and a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.