Janardan Shivram Taware v. The State of Maharashatra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, for the Petitioner Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent NO.1. F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : CORAM : F.I.F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : REBELLO & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007 DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007 P.C. P.C.P.C. . Based on the public notice dated 10th October, 2001 it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are in occupation of the land identified under Survey No.47/30-D in an area of 17 Gunthas. Earlier only 18 Gunthas of the land had been acquired in the year 1961. It will be open to the petitioner to take such steps which in law he is entitled to. At any rate we are not inclined considering the disputed question of facts to interfere in the exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. It will be open to the petitioner to apply to the Survey Authorities to demarcate the portion of his land which is acquired. With the above observation petition disposed of. No order as to costs. F.I.REBELLO, J) (F.I.REBELLO F.I.REBELLO R.M.SAVANT,J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J R.M.SAVANT,J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Mar 2007. The bench was F I REBELLO, R M SAVANT.
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.