wp6742.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6742 OF 2015
Narayan Maroti Longadge,
aged 61 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist,
R/o Shivnichor, Distt.Chandrapur. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division Nagpur.
2] The Additional Collector,
Chandrapur.
3] The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Chandrapur.
4] The Tahsildar Ghughus,
Distt. Chandrapur.
5] Maroti Ramdas Bhoyar,
aged 63 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist.
6] Ramdas Devaji Bhoyar,
aged 40 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist.
7] Parasram Dadaji Pimpalshende,
aged 43 yrs. Occu. Agriculturist.
8] Ritesh Sakharam Vabitkar,
aged 35 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist.
9] Murlidhar Maroti Longadge,
aged 65 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist.
10] Tukaram Maroti Longadge,
aged 57 yrs. Occu. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:03 :::
wp6742.15
2
11] Manohar Maroti Longadge,
aged 45 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist.
12] Sakhubai Rishi Nibrad,
aged 50 yrs. Occu. Housenold.
Nos. 5 to 12 R/o Shivnichor,
Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS.
Shri P. J. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S. B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Shri A. B. Tikle, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 8.
ig CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 29, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2015 passed
by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur rejecting the stay application that was preferred by the petitioner along with the revision application filed by him. The said application has been rejected without assigning any reasons in support thereof.
3] In proceedings initiated by the respondent nos. 5 to 8 seeking right of way the revenue authorities passed an order in favour of the said respondents. This order came to be challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision application along with a stay application before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner on 09.12.2015 called for the records of the proceedings but rejected the stay application without assigning ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:03 ::: wp6742.15 3 any reasons.
4] It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the dispute in question as the revision application is pending. In the facts of the present case, the following order would serve the ends of justice:
The order dated 09.12.2015 rejecting the stay application is set aside. The stay application is restored for being decided on merits.
The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur shall pass fresh orders on the stay application within a period of 15 days from today.
The parties shall appear before the Additional Commissioner on 04.07.2016.
The order dated 15.12.2015 passed in the writ petition shall continue to operate till the stay application is decided. It is made clear that the stay application shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the continuation of the order of status quo. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE svk ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:03 :::