SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. B. SURYAWANSHI
NANIBAI PRALHAD BAHIRAT AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP/8299/2020



1 939-WP-8299-20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 8299 OF 2020

1.

Nanibai w/o Pralhad Bahirat,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

2.

Kashibai w/o Pralhad Bahirat,

Age: 56 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

3.

Sudamati w/o Madhukar Pawke,

Age: 41 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Hadgaon, Tq. Sailu,

Dist. Parbhani.

4.

Rajeshwar s/o Pralhad Bahirat,

Age: 41 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

5.

Meena w/o Tukaram Pije,

Age: 35 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Kurahadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

6.

Jaishree w/o Laxman Rokade,

Age: 31 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Jintur, Dist. Parbhani

7.

Sunita w/o Ganesh Bombe,

Age: 26 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Koldani, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

8.

Anita w/o Jairam Bombe,

Age: 26 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Koldani, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

9.

Varndawanl w/o Nitin Rasal,

Age: 24 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Nandapur, Tq. & Dist.

2 939-WP-8299-20.odt

Parbhani.

10. Archana w/o Balasaheb Bakhade,

Age: 22 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Shek, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

11. Ayodhya w/o Madhavrao Awchar,

Age: 21 years, Occ: Household,

R/o Talegaon, Tq. Pathri,

Dist. Parbhani.

… Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through Secretary (Revenue)

Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,

Mumbai-32.

2.

The Divisional Commissioner

Commissioner Office, Aurangabad

Tq. Dist. Aurangabad

3.

The Collector

Collector Office, Parbhani,

Tq. Dist. Parbhani.

4.

Sub-Divisional Officer

Sub-Division, Sailu

Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani.

5.

The Tahsildar,

Jintur, Tq. Jintur

Dist. Parbhani.

6.

Bismillabi w/o Magroddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Household,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

7.

Joharabi w/o Salimoddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Household,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

8.

Shakilabegum w/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Household,

3 939-WP-8299-20.odt

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

9.

Rafioddin s/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

10. Hafizoddin s/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

11. Gousoddin s/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

12. Anisoddin s/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

13. Rihasoddin s/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

14. Nizamoddin s/o Samioddin,

Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kausadi, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

… Respondents

…

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pushpak U. Gujrathi h/f Mr. V. P. Latange

AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to 14 : Mr. Shaikh Mohd. Ibrahim Ismail

…

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the

4 939-WP-8299-20.odt

consent of the parties.

2.

Unreasoned order dated 31-07-2020 passed by the

Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in revision case No. 2018/ROR/

REV/289, is challenged in the present petition. The Additional

Commissioner while dismissing the revision has not given any reason as

to why the revision is being dismissed. He has reproduced the order

passed by the Divisional Commissioner earlier to the effect that, ‘though

repeated hearings have taken place in the matter, the revision applicant

and his advocates are repeatedly remaining absent and they are not

interested in prosecuting the matter. The earlier revision was, therefore,

dismissed vide order dated 24-09-2018’. By recording this, the

Commissioner has observed that he does not find any reason to interfere

in the said conclusion, hence, the revision is dismissed.

3.

The impugned order is unreasoned order and is passed in

utter violation of principles of natural justice. It is, therefore,

unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top