Archana Gokul Kothawate vs Deputy Director Of Land Records ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9599 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2017

Bombay High Court
Archana Gokul Kothawate vs Deputy Director Of Land Records ... on 13 December, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
                                      1                 WP NO.1570 OF 2014


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.1570 OF 2014


           Smt. Archana Gokul Kathawate,
           Age 41 yrs, Occ: Household,
           R/o. Jadhavgalli, Vaijapur,
           Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                                                         ...Petitioner
                   Versus

  1.       Deputy Director of Land Records,
           Aurangabad.

  2.       The Superintendent of Land Records,
           Aurangabad.

  3.       Taluka Inspector of Land Records,
           Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

  4.       Smt. Gaurabai Raju Shetti,
           Age Major, Occu: Household,
           R/o. Murari Park, Vaijapur,
           Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                                               ...Respondents
                             ...
  Mr. Chandrakant R.Thorat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
  Ms. S.S.Raut, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent
  nos. 1 to 3.

  Mr. S.A.Deshmukh, Advocate, Mr. S.S.Kulkarni, Advocate, for
  respondent no.4.
                           ...

                               CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : December 13th, 2017 *** ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:41:44 ::: 2 WP NO.1570 OF 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner Shri Chandrakant R.Thorat points out that appeal filed against order dated 23rd of October, 2013, in the proceedings bearing No.N.BHU/APPEAL/S.R.2081/2013, has been decided without issuing notice and / or hearing the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23rd October, 2013 and, as such, for the purported reason of alternate remedy, appeal has been disposed of without hearing the petitioner. Learned Counsel states that had an opportunity come his way, may be he would have been able to point out that appeal could have been decided without getting swayed by alternate remedy.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 Mr. S.A.Deshmukh, holding for Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, submits that may be ostensibly, the impugned order has been passed without ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:41:44 ::: 3 WP NO.1570 OF 2014 hearing the parties, yet the position in law is unlikely to change that an alternate remedy is available. Learned Counsel Shri Chandrakant R.Thorat, however, submits that yet he would desire to have hearing before the appellate authority in order to convince that an appeal can be maintainable.

5. In the circumstances, it would be expedient that an opportunity be given to the parties to address themselves on the appeal with respect to its maintainability. As such, the impugned order is set aside, remanding the matter to the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, restoring the Appeal filed by the petitioner.

Parties agree to appear before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, on 22nd of January, 2018, doing away with issuance of notice to parties by Deputy Director of Land Records, for hearing.

(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH) JUDGE ...

AGP/1570-14wp ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:41:44 :::