Bombay High Court
Narayan Maroti Longadge vs The Additional Commissioner, ... on 29 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
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
wp6742.15
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
