Bombay High Court refuses petitioners to participate in judicial/quasi judicial proceedings before Revenue Authorities not involving them

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that in a Public Interest Litigation, the Court cannot permit the Petitioners to participate in judicial or quasi judicial proceedings pending before the Revenue Authorities, to which the Petitioners are not party.

The Aurangabad Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y. G. Khobragade dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed intent to convey to the Bench that their desire is to protect the Gairan land situated in Hingoli, Taluka and District Hingoli.

They are aggrieved that the person who was allocated the portion of that land, has indulged in creating third party interests.

On deeper scrutiny of this Public Interest Litigation paper book, the Bench noted that the person who is alleged to have created third party interest, was before the Court in Petition of 2010.

By an order dated 26.09.2013, the High Court have directed the Revenue Authorities to look into the issue of the use of the Gairan land.

A proceeding is already pending before the Revenue Authorities at the behest of another individual with regard to the same Gairan land. The Petitioners pray that they be granted an opportunity of hearing and contest the review proceedings, which are pending before the Deputy Collector since 2018.

In such facts and circumstances, the High Court do not find that any public cause is taken up in this petition and more so, when the same Gairan land is already subject matter of litigation before the various Revenue Authorities.

The post Bombay High Court refuses petitioners to participate in judicial/quasi judicial proceedings before Revenue Authorities not involving them appeared first on India Legal.



from India Legal https://ift.tt/KG0Qydr

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A 44-year-old advocate jumps off Saket court building in Delhi

Image
Dead body of a lawyer was found in the Saket Court complex parking on Monday night after he allegedly jumped from the lawyers’ chamber. The lawyer who is deceased was identified as 44-year-old Om Kumar Sharma by the Delhi Police. The police said that prima facie looks like a suicide as a note has also been found. As per the information available, deceased Om Kumar Sharma was suffering from a liver ailment and left a suicide note at the spot. Police received call around 8 pm about the incident afetr the staff at the Saket court saw an advocate jump from the lawyer’s chambers. DCP (South) Ankit Chauhan,said that the police rushed to the spot where the lawyer  was lying near the parking area.” The DCP informed that on Monday evening, the deceased went to a hospital with his wife and later came to court. He left his wife at the main gate and went inside. Around 20-30 minutes later, his wife found out about the incident. Further investigation is still on, the police added. The...
Read more

Supreme Court extends time for Maharashtra Speaker to decide on disqualification plea against NCP Ajit Pawar faction till Feb 15

Image
The Supreme Court today extended the time for the Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar to decide the disqualification petitions lodged by the Sharad Pawar faction against the Ajit Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party.  A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra agreed to extend the time till February 15, 2024.  Earlier on October 30, the apex court had directed the Maharashtra Speaker to decide as per the tenth schedule of the Constitution by January 31, 2024. Two days before the expiry of the deadline, the Speaker approached the top court seeking three weeks additional time.  Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that since the Speaker was occupied with deciding the disqualification petition filed over the Shiv Sena rift, he is not in a position to comply with the given timeline. The Solicitor General said that the proceedings are otherwise over and the Speaker realistically requires three more weeks to di...
Read more

Delhi High Court imposes Rs 10,000 cost on petitioner, says gag order only to be passed in case of threat to fair trial

Image
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on a petitioner seeking gag orders against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran, stating that a gag order should be passed only when it became absolutely necessary for the fairness of a trial. The single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that just because a publication was mentioning the court proceedings, it could not be concluded that it was affecting a fair trial. The court has to carefully see the nature of the publication and find out whether the content of the publication will cause prejudice to the trial or not. It said prejudice by a publication could be divided into two categories, one which threatened to impair the courts impartiality and the other which prejudiced the court’s ability to determine true facts. The single-judge Bench imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on petitioner Ajay Kumar, who sought directions against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran to conceal his identity while circulating news or any article...
Read more