Naimullakhan S/O. Amanullakhan ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1679 Bom

                                                                                  wp2119.16
                                            1




                                                                               
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                       
                          WRIT PETITION     No. 2119 OF 2016


    Naimulla Khan s/o Amanulla Khan Pathan,
    aged about 47 years,




                                                      
    Occupation : Business,
    r/o Shastri Nagar, Lakadganj,
    Yavatmal.                          .... PETITIONER.




                                          
                              VERSUS


    1. State of Maharashtra
                               
       Secretary, Revenue Department,
                              
       Mantralaya, Fort,
       Mumbai-32.


    2. Sub Divisional Officer,
      


       Ralegaon,
       District Yavatmal.
   



    3. Tahsildar,
       Kalamb,





       District Yavatmal.                        ....  RESPONDENTS.


    Shri S.R. Deshpande Advocate for the Petitioner.
    Ms. Udeshi, AGP, for respondents.
                                     .....





                                       CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 20.04.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

wp2119.16

finally by consent of parties.

2. It is seen from the impugned order dated 23.3.2016

that the basic contention of the petitioner that he was not

required to seek any permission for industrial user by virtue of

Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and also

1994 Govt. Resolution, has not been considered at all by the

respondent no. 2. However, it is submitted by the learned AGP,

on instructions, that respondent no. 2 is ready to dispose of the

appeal expeditiously, and in any case within three months.

3. In view of what appears on record and on perusal of

the impugned order and also the submission of learned AGP, I am

of the view that the purpose of the petitioner would be served if a

direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal expeditiously

within a time bound programme is given.

4. Accordingly, it is directed that the appeal pending

before respondent no. 2 shall be disposed of within three months

from the date of this order and in accordance with law. Till

disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against

the petitioner. There is no need for calling of record and

wp2119.16

proceedings and the order passed in that regard is hereby

recalled.

Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.

JUDGE

/TA/