Bombay High Court
Madhuri Pandurang Joshi vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Others on 8 March, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Abhay Ahuja
WP12953.19+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12953 OF 2019
Sarang S/o Avinash Joshi
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.12573 OF 2019
Madhuri Pandurang Joshi
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.12576 OF 2019
Pallavi Sarang Joshi
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
AND
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 18:56:48 :::
WP12953.19+
2
WRIT PETITION NO.13439 OF 2019
Sarjerao Ganpat Thokal
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Kiran D. Jadhav Advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs.Geeta L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr.G.S. Rane Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
...
CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 8th MARCH, 2021
ORDER :
1. There is consensus with respect to the fact that sub
divisional officer who had passed impugned orders, would not
have jurisdiction to pass such orders. Similar matters were
before this court in a group of writ petitions bearing writ petition
No. 14315 of 2018 and other companion matters, and those
have been disposed of by order dated 21 st January 2019,
observing, thus:-
" 5. It is, therefore, obvious that the impugned orders
were passed by an authority which did not have the
jurisdiction to do so. It is also undisputed, in view of the
above referred judgments of the Honourable Apex Court and
WP12953.19+
the learned Division Bench of this Court, that the claims of
the respondents / farmers in these cases and the disputes
raised by them, will have to be considered by the District
Judge.
6.........................
7. Since these matters are being referred to the District
Judge at Aurangabad for adjudication, it would be appropriate
to leave all contentions of the litigating sides open. However,
I would be making certain observations about the unpaid
amounts and the panchanama, while disposing of these
matters today. It is, however, noted that the document cited
by Advocate Shri Thombre, is not a panchanama. "
2. In view of aforesaid, we follow the course charted by this
court under its order dated 21st January 2019 in present
petitions, as well.
3. The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned
orders delivered by the sub divisional officer, Aurangabad are set
aside. The disputes raised by the petitioners / farmers are
remitted to the district judge, Aurangabad.
4. Having regard to observations in the order, referred to
above, the principal district judge shall assign these matters to
the same district judge.
[ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
asb/MAR21
