Gramastha Mandal Kundevahal Thr Panchpudhari Sharad Bama Bhoir And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

903.WP-12503.24.DOCX ppn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.04.19 12:01:04 +0530 PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12503 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13648 OF 2024 Gramastha Mandal Kundevahal through Panchpudhari Sharad Bama Bhoir & Ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr R. D. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. Rakesh Patil, for Petitioner. Mr Ritvik Joshi, for Intervenor in Interim Application. Mr Sachhit Bhogle, 'B' Panel Counsel for the State. Mr Bhushan Deshmukh a/w Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal, Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/by RS Justicia Law Chambers for respondent nos.3 to 6.

______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 17 APRIL 2025 PC:- 1.

The intervenor has filed a praecipe for speaking to the minutes.

2.

The intervenor suggests that we should include the word "been" between the words "had" and "allotted" in line 2 of paragraph 16 of our judgment and order dated 8 April 2025. He submits that the first sentence of paragraph 16 suggests that the intervenor of subject property to the

903.WP-12503.24.DOCX petitioners which was not the case. The first line of paragraph 16 does not suggest anything that has now been suggested by the intervenor. For the context, it is clear that the intervenor's claim was that it was allotted the property and in terms of such allotment, no further transfers were permissible accordingly, no order is necessary on the praecipe. 3.

Respondent nos.3 to 6 have handed in a praecipe. The Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 once again reiterated the request for stay. Such request was made soon after pronouncement and the same was considered and rejected. Seeking the same relief by filing a praecipe for speaking to the minutes amounts to abuse of this facility. 4.

This a matter where respondent nos.3 to 6 have, based on order which we would have held to have patently without jurisdiction and vitiated due to legal mala fides received an amount of Rs. 56.26 crores. Four weeks' time is already granted to them to bring back this amount. Repeating prayer for stay despite its earlier rejection by taking out praecipe for speaking to the minutes is entirely misconceived. 5.

Accordingly, this praecipe is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by respondent nos.3 to 6 within a week to Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel. Proof of payment should be filed by 5 May 2025 in this Court.

(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)