Jayashree Navnath Tajne And Others v. The Divisional Commissioner Nashik And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5666 OF 2016 1.

Sau. Jayashree Navnath Tajne Age 31 years, Occ. Household 2.

Ramdas s/o Vitthal Salve Age 33 years, Occ. Agriculture 3.

Haribhau s/o Dattatraya Tajne Age 57 years, Occ. Agriculture 4.

Subhash Punja Barde Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture 5.

Sau. Shobha Rajendra Godge Age 45 years, Occ. Household 6.

Bharat Sopan Jarad Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture 7.

Jankiram Baban Gaikwad Age 38 years, Occ. Agriculture 8.

Sau. Surekha Sunil Gaikwad Age 31 years, Occ. Household All R/o Ashwi (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.

...

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik 2.

The Collector, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.

3.

The Tahsildar, Sangamner, and the Election Officer, Ashwi (Bk.) Gram Panchayat, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

4.

Gram Panchayat, Ashwi (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar through its Gram Sevak 5.

Santosh Trimbak Mhase, Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture 6.

Gitaram Dashrath Gaikwad Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture 7.

Bhaurao Chandrabhan Kangune Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture R.Nos.5 to 7 R/o Ashwi (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar 8.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar District Ahmednagar 9.

The Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.

...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri V.V. Wagh, Advocate holding for Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for State Shri S.S. Wagh, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 & 6 Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 & 8 .....

CORAM:

S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED:

17th January, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2.

As a part of subsequent development, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nasik has finally heard the appeal and has reserved the judgment. In view of this subsequent development, it would be appropriate now to dispose of this Writ Petition by continuing the interim protection granted by this Court on 30/5/2016 till the time learned Divisional Commissioner delivers the judgment in appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The interim protection granted by this Court on 30/5/2016 is confirmed till the time the learned Divisional Commissioner decides the appeal by pronouncing the judgment in accordance with law. The learned Divisional Commissioner is at liberty to pronounce the judgment within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

3.

In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE