Shyamrao Moreshwar Kulkarni & Ors. v. Uttam Namdev Bankar & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The limited grievance which has been ventilated in this Appeal by the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant is that, in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd February 2010 in Writ Petition No. 9644 of 2009, the learned Single…
- Para 44. It is equally true that the learned Single Judge has observed that the Authority below could not have given any direction with regard to making any change in the revenue entries and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the direction regarding…
Judgment
Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr.D.V. Godbole i/b V.N. Tayade for the Appellant. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, “A” Panel Counsel, for Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19TH APRIL 2010. P.C. Admit.
At the request of the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties, the Appeal is finally heard today.
The limited grievance which has been ventilated in this Appeal by the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant is that, in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd February 2010 in Writ Petition No. 9644 of 2009, the learned Single Judge ought not to have observed that Rule was made absolute because the learned Single Judge has virtually dismissed the Petition with some directions. It has been held that 2 the original Petitioners, namely, present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no right under Clause 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 as the land in question was within the limits of the Pune Municipal Corporation. The afore-stated fact could not be disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents.
It is equally true that the learned Single Judge has observed that the Authority below could not have given any direction with regard to making any change in the revenue entries and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the direction regarding deletion of revenue entries by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not correct.
The afore-stated fact is also accepted by both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The result is that the Petition filed by the present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 should have been allowed to a limited extent and, therefore, we clarify the fact that the learned Single Judge has allowed the Petition only to the extent that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer with regard to deletion of certain entries has been modified.
With this clarification, we dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
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.