Spb/ v. The Appellate Authority
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 14 May 2010
- Bench
- MRIDULA BHATKAR, R M SAVANT
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. There is a dispute as regards the said factual position, as according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4, that hearing, in fact, was granted to the petitioner and that…
- Para 44. In view of the directions which we have issued hereinabove, the Petition to stand disposed of.
Judgment
Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the Petitioner. --- Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.M.Ganguli for Respondent No.4. --- CORAM: R.M.SAVANT AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. (Vacation Bench) DATED: 14th MAY, 2010 P.C.:
The above petition has been filed on the ground that in the proceedings under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 before the Appellate Authority i.e. Principal Secretary, GAD, Government of 2 Maharashtra, the petitioner has not been heard. The issue before the Appellate Authority was as regards eviction of the petitioner from the premises which are the erstwhile requisitioned premises under the said Act. The Appeal before the Appellate Authority was lastly fixed on 27th of April, 2010 on which date, according to the petitioner he waited till 5.30 p.m. but no hearing took place and the matter was adjourned without communicating the next date of hearing.
There is a dispute as regards the said factual position, as according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4, that hearing, in fact, was granted to the petitioner and that the petitioner had also filed written submissions. The question is whether the petitioner was actually heard on 27th April, 2010 or not. In our view, considering the nature of the proceedings which are for the eviction of the petitioner, it would be just and proper that proper opportunity is given to the petitioner to agitate the said Appeal. 3
We, therefore, direct the Appellate Authority to hear all the parties on 5th June, 2010 at 3 p.m.(which date and time is fixed by consent of the parties). Hearing should be concluded within two weeks thereafter by maintaining a Rozanama. We also direct the Appellate Authority not to pass any order on the basis of the fact that hearing is concluded on 27th of April, 2010.
In view of the directions which we have issued hereinabove, the Petition to stand disposed of.
Parties to act upon a copy duly authenticated by the Registry. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (R.M.SAVANT, J.) .....
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 May 2010. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR, 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.