Deepak Kishor Kanugo Throu. Poa Sanjay Kanugo v. Abhay Vishnu Purandare And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4246 OF 2024 Deepak Kishor Kanugo, ] Through his constituted attorney :
] Sanjay Kanugo ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Abhay Vishnu Purandare ]
2. Moreshwar @ Vijay Vishnu Purandare ]
3. Anuradha Ashok Pandit ]
4. Milan Vishnu Purandare ]
5. Madhukar Bhalchandra Purandare ]
6. Shashikant Bhalchandra Purandare ]
7. Ashok Bhalchandra Purandare ]
8. Vasant Bhalchandra Purandare ]
9. Vina Sadashiv Purandare @ ] Mugdha Naresh Pandit ]
10. Rajiv Sadashiv Purandare ]
11. Rekha Sadashiv Purandare ]
12. Asha Sadashiv Purandare ]
13. Parshuram Panvalkar (Since Deceased) ] Through LRs :
] (A) Prakash Parshuram Panvalkar ] (B) Parag Parshuram Panvalkar ] (C) Santosh Parshuram Panvalkar ]
14. Ajay Laxman Bhoir ]
15. Mehul Deepak Thakur ]
16. Shaila Chandrashekhar Joshi ]
17. The Tehsildar, Palghar ]
18. Sub-Divisional Officer, Palghar ]
19. The Additional Collector, Palghar ]
20. The Additional Commissioner, ] Konkan Division, Mumbai ]
21. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through Department of Revenue ]
22. The Minister for Revenue, ] State of Maharashtra ] .. Respondents Mr. Pramod Patil with Mr. Shyamsunder Solanke and Ms. Sakshi Thombre, Advocates, i/by PNP & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, Assistant Government Pleader for the RespondentState of Maharashtra. 1/3
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. } 1.
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent and heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
Considering the nature of relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, service of notice on respondent nos.1 to 16 is dispensed with. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for respondent nos.17 to 22.
3.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 31st January 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, has preferred a revision application before the State Government along with an application for stay. It is submitted that though the aforesaid proceedings were filed in February, 2024, the stay application has not been taken up for consideration. It is thus prayed that appropriate directions be issued.
4.
Considering the fact that the petitioner's revision application is pending with the State Government and the stay application is yet to be considered, the following directions would serve the ends of justice : (i) The respondent no.21-Department of Revenue, State of Maharashtra shall consider the stay application preferred by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 254 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 within a period of four weeks of receiving copy of this order. Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date:
2024.06.14 10:05:20 +0530 2/3 SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT
(ii) The petitioner shall serve copy of this order on the respondent nos.1 to 16 to enable those parties to contest the stay application.
(iii) The stay application shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(iv) The order passed be communicated to the parties. (v) All points raised are kept open.
5.
Rule accordingly. Writ Petition is disposed of. 6.
Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ] 3/3