Smt. Radhi Tukaram Jambhulkar And Others v. Shri. Rukhmini Pandurang Santhan Trust, Yavatmal Thr. President/ Trustee Madhav D. Damle And ANR

2023:BHC-NAG:12687 wp3290.23.O.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3290 OF 2023 (Smt. Radhi Tukaram Jambhulkar and others Vs. Shri Rukhmini Pandurang Sansthan Trust, Yavatmal thr. its President / Trustee Madhav Diwakar Damle and another) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for Petitioners.

Mr. A. V. Khare, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. D. P. Thakare, Addl GP for Respondent No.2/State. CORAM: ANIL S KILOR , J.

DATE: 24 th AUGUST, .

In this writ petition, the order dated 23.12.2013, passed by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal is under challenge. The petition is filed on 21.06.2022 i.e. after nine years.

2.

After going through the writ petition, no explanation has been offered about the delay and latches. 3.

Mr. Khare, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 points out that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the present matter and in Writ Petition No.6462/2013 filed by one Ramdas Bhoyar, is one and the same and in the said Writ Petition No.6462/2013, this Court on finding that there is no merit in the challenge, the writ petition was dismissed and the said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special

wp3290.23.O.odt Leave to Appeal Civil No.5940/2014 vide order dated 04.03.2014.

4.

Moreover, it is pertinent to note that on 17.08.2023 when the matter was listed before this Court, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and therefore, it was adjourned for today.

5.

Today, the matter is listed under the caption for dismissal. Despite the same, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) NSN