Bombay High Court
Ashok Vitthal Nannaware vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
1 WPSt.13133-22, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13133 OF 2022
Ashok Vitthal Nannaware,
Age :- 55 years. Occu. Business
R/o :- Kharda, Tal. Jamkhed,
Dist - Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through, Sub Divisional Officer,
Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. The Tahsildar Jamkhed
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vikram S. Undre.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. K. N. Lokhande.
...
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 05.05.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :-
1. Not on board, mentioned at 4.45 p.m. by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Upon mentioning taken on board.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the facts in
this Writ petition are identical to the facts mentioned in Writ
2 WPSt.13133-22, oral jud.odt
Petition No.5072 of 2022 and a similar order may be passed in
this petition also.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly state
that no reasons are required to be recorded by this court, in
view of the fact that the facts and issues involved in this
petition is identical to the facts mentioned in Writ Petition
No.5072 of 2022. Statement is accepted.
4. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice for
respondents-State Authorities. Rule is made returnable
forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
5. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for
quashing and setting aside the Auction Notice dated
18.04.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Jamkhed and further seeks
an order by directing the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the
appeal filed by the petitioners expeditiously.
6. It is not in dispute that against the order passed by the
Tahsildar, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before
the Sub Divisional Officer along with condonation application
3 WPSt.13133-22, oral jud.odt
and stay application which are pending. There is a delay in
filing the said appeal on the part of the petitioner. In the
meanwhile, the Tahsildar has issued an auction notice on
18.04.2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay an entire amount
of Rs.3,76,65,000/- within fifteen (15) days from the date of
said notice.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.4459 of
2022 in case of Vinod Shankar Nawale Vs. The Sub Divisional
Officer and another and would submit that similar order may
be passed in this petition also.
8. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before
the Sub Divisional Officer along with application for
condonation of delay and stay application, we direct the Sub
Divisional Officer to dispose off all the three proceedings
within four (4) weeks from the date of communication of this
order. The Sub Divisional Officer shall first decide the
application for condonation of delay and if the delay is
condoned, the Authority shall decide the application for stay
and also the appeal.
4 WPSt.13133-22, oral jud.odt
9. Till such decision is taken by the Sub Divisional Officer
and for a period of two (2) weeks thereafter the Tahsildar shall
not take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned notice of
auction dated 18.04.2022 annexed at Exh.I to the petition.
10. The petitioner shall not create any third party interest or
encumber the said property which is the subject matter of the
said notice for a period of eight (8) weeks from today.
11. Writ Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Rule
is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
12. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.
13. The petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary
adjournment before the Sub Divisional Officer.
14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
view on the merits of the condonation application and stay
application filed by the petitioner and also the Sub Divisional
Officer shall not be influenced by the factum of this Court
granting temporary stay against the Tahsildar from taking any
coercive action from entering in the property of the petitioner.
This Court has granted such protection only in view of the fact
5 WPSt.13133-22, oral jud.odt
that the proceedings of the petitioner by way of appeal as well
as condonation application and stay application are pending
before the Sub Divisional Officer.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
...
vmk/-
