BHAGUBHAI MAKANBHAI v. MAMLATDAR & AGRICULTURAL LANDSTRIBUNAL (GANOT)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petitions are disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Nagesh Sood, AGP for Respondent No. 1-2 ---------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date of decision: 28/07/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)Rule. Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2.(cid:9)What is challenged in the present Special Civil Application is the Circular dated 16.10.2003 issued by the State Government by which all the Mamlatdars have been directed to keep the proceedings under Section 70 (o) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in abeyance and/or suspension and also for an appropriate writ, directing the concerned Mamlatdar to proceed with the Tenancy Case No.120 of 2004, and to decide it on merits and to proceed with in accordance with the provisons of the Act.
3.(cid:9)Today, when the matter is taken up for Final Hearing, Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the State Government and makes a statement that the Circular dated
Operative part
16.10.2003 issued by the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat is being withdrawn and that concerned Mamlatdar and ALT (Tenancy) would decide the application submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and on merits. In that view of the matter, nothing further is required to be done now in the present Special Civil Applications. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. rmr. [ M.R. Shah, J. ]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petitions are disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 28 Jul 2004. The bench was M R SHAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.