01 May 2008
Supreme Court
Download

PADMAKAR KRISHNARAO BHAGWATKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case number: C.A. No.-005938-005938 / 2002
Diary number: 18910 / 2001
Advocates: E. C. AGRAWALA Vs V. N. RAGHUPATHY


1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5938 OF 2002

Padmakar Krishnarao Bhagwatkar and Ors.   ..Apellants

VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Anr.    ..Respondents

O R D E R

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order

dated 30th of July,2001 passed in  Writ  Petition No.1228 of 2001

by the High Court  of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur

by  which Section 67 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

was challenged. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High

Court in limine. At the time of hearing of this appeal, it was

informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that a large

number of writ petitions have been filed by the different writ

petitioners challenging  the  same levy in respect of the Nagpur

town imposed by the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur. Since  the

writ  petition  was  dismissed  by  the  High  Court  in  limine  in

respect of which this  appeal  has now been preferred and on the

same   issue  other  writ  petitions  have  been  fixed  for  final

disposal by the High Court in the month of June, 2008,  we  feel

it fit and proper to direct  that  the writ petition should also

be  heard   along  with  the  other  writ  petitions  which,  we  are

informed, are fixed for hearing, as noted herein earlier.   

2. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and  the  writ

petition of the appellant is restored  to  its original file and

is to be decided in the manner already indicated above.  

3. We make it clear that we have not gone into the  merits of

the  writ  petition  which  was  dismissed   by   the  High  Court,

2

2

accordingly,  the  same  shall  be  decided  by  the  High  Court  in

accordance  with law along with other writ petitions now lying

for disposal before the High Court.  

4. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated

above. There will be no order as to costs.  

                    ………………………………J.

[TARUN CHATTERJEE]

New Delhi;         …………………………………J. May 01, 2008.   [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]