High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Writ Petition Challenging Notice Under Section 14 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 for Non-Prosecution. Petitioner Failed to Appear or Take Steps to Prosecute the Petition, Leading to Dismissal.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 111
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Qader Khan s/o Ismail Khan, a resident of Parbhani district, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging a notice dated 30.09.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The notice was issued under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, in respect of an enquiry that had been initiated against the petitioner's father, Ismail Khan s/o Lal Khan, in the year 1977. The petitioner claimed that his father was an aged person suffering from Asthma, and the petitioner, being the only son, had participated and conducted the enquiry on behalf of his father. The petitioner sought to quash the notice. However, on the date of hearing, none appeared for the petitioner, and the petitioner had not taken any steps to prosecute the petition. The court observed that the petition was of the year 1992 and had been pending for a long time. Since the petitioner failed to appear or prosecute the petition, the court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. The court did not examine the merits of the case.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Petitioner failed to appear or prosecute the writ petition challenging a notice under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution - Held that when the petitioner does not appear or prosecute the petition, the court has no option but to dismiss the same (Para 2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notice dated 30.09.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Law Points

  • Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution
  • Notice under Section 14 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
  • 1961
  • Enquiry against father
  • Petitioner participated in enquiry on behalf of father
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 3

Writ Petition No. 3007 of 1992

2011-03-08

S.S. SHINDE, J.

Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondents

Qader Khan s/o. Ismail Khan

1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of notice dated 30.09.1992 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

Filing Reason

The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, in respect of an enquiry against his father.

Issues

Whether the notice dated 30.09.1992 issued under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed.

Submissions/Arguments

None for the petitioner; Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

When the petitioner does not appear or prosecute the petition, the court has no option but to dismiss the same for want of prosecution.

Judgment Excerpts

None for the petitioner. The petition is of the year 1992. The petitioner has not taken any steps to prosecute this petition. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 1992 challenging a notice dated 30.09.1992. On 08.03.2011, when the matter was heard, none appeared for the petitioner, and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Direction for Environmental Deposit in Film Shooting Case. The High Court's direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs was found to be unjustified as it contradicted its own findings of no environmental damage.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeals Against Pay Parity for Subordinate Court Employees. The court ruled that government orders for pay revision were not applicable to subordinate court employees, while affirming the applicability of revised pay sc...