All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 559 OF 2018 Jamila Nasir Shaikh ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Vijay Dhananjay Upadhyay For Applicant Adv. A. A. Takalkar APP for State CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 21st March, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 22/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2018 Mrs. Jamila Nasir Shaikh .Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr. V. D. Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 22.03.2018 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C. R. No. 56 of 2018 registered with the Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 342, 354(D), 366, 506 r/w 34of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ( for short 'POCSO' ). Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant has not been named in the FIR and that the allegations are essentially as against co-accused – Sohail. He submits that even in the remand report, the Applicant's name has not been disclosed. Learned APP states that the victim has taken the name of the Applicant as being the person who was present at the place where the incident took place. She submits that investigation is still in progress. Learned APP seeks time to take detailed instructions. In the meantime, till the next date, the Applicant is granted interim protection on the following terms & conditions :- O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicant shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station on 2 nd & 3rd April, 2018 between 10:00 a. m. and 12:00 noon. Stand over to 10.04.2018 . To be listed on the Supplementary Board . All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPTORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2018 Jamila Nasir Shaikh Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Vijay Upadhyay for the Applicant Ms. J. S. Lohokare, A.P.P for the Respondent-State API Mr. Ananda Vishnu Bagadi from Malvani Police Station is present CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. TUESDAY, 10th APRIL, 2018 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 56 of 2018 registered with the Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 342, 354(D), 366, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and that the allegations are essentially as against co-accused-Sohail. He submits that even in the remand report, the applicant's name has not been disclosed. Perused the papers. It appears and it is not disputed by the learned A.P.P that the victim has taken the name of the person, as she was present at the place where the incident took place. Learned A.P.P submits that apart from the same, there are no other allegations qua the applicant. It appears that the applicant has reported to the Investigating Officer pursuant to the interim protection granted to her vide order dated 22nd March, 2018. Considering the role of the applicant, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Hence, the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms and conditions : ORDER (i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount ; (ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station as and when called; (iii) The applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. (iv) The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency; The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this application. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5617 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the Petitioners. Mr.R.D.Soni i/by M/s.Ram & Company for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 21st November, 2008. P.C. . The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 24/04/2008 whereby, on application filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 17 to 20, basically contending that before hearing of the Application Exhibit 5, it is necessary to consider the aspect of deficit in stamp as per Bombay Stamp Act. There is no dispute that the appeal against the said injunction order is also dismissed. The learned Judge, therefore, while deciding this application clearly observed that the parties are at liberty to raise this point while leading the evidence and at the time of hearing of the suit. In view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The intention with regard to the deficiency and as contemplated under Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act need to be considered at the earliest by the Trial Court. However, for grant of injunction/relief that may be one of the facet, but that itself cannot be the reason not to consider the application at this stage of the proceedings. There is no dispute that while passing the injunction order at Exhibit 5, there is always various facets which court consider to grant interim order. The validity or deficiency of stamp is a matter which can be gone into at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Court cannot decline any interim relief on this ground. In view of this keeping all points open, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. . No costs. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5664 OF 2010 Dhondiram Shankar Masal & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Nana Narayan Masal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.V. Bansode for the petitioners. Mr. Surel S. Shah for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : Heard. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the common order dated 28 April 2010 passed by the learned District Judge1, Pandharpur, rejecting the petitioners' applications at Exhibits 94, 101, 102 and 118. By that order, the application made by the respondent no.1 at Exhibit 106 was also rejected. Respondent no. 1, however, has not challenged the order rejecting his application at Exhibit 106. Respondent no.1 in the writ petition is the original plaintiff. The petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 7 are the original defendants. In a suit for partition filed by respondent no.1 a decree for partition and separate possession was passed. The petitioners filed an appeal in which a partial stay to the execution was granted by the appellate court. The appellate court directed that the execution of the decree upto the delivery of possession can proceed but only directed stay for delivery of possession till the disposal of the appeal. Thereafter the petitioners filed an execution proceeding and the decree appears to have been sent to the Collector for partition. It appears that thereafter the Tahsildar issued a notice for possession but actual possession was not delivered when it was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that there was a stay for delivery of possession. Thereafter the present petitioners made various applications mentioned above. By the application at Exhibit 57, the petitioners prayed that the proceedings for contempt of court be initiated against the Tahsildar. By the application at Exhibit 94, the petitioners prayed that tamperings were made by the respondent no.1 in the proceedings of Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 2002 and, therefore, prosecution be launched under sections 466, 468, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. The appellate court has held that there was no iota of evidence about the alleged tampering by the respondent no.1 No material was pointed out before me to show any tampering by the respondent no.1. Hence, that order requires no interference. By the application Exhibit 101, the petitioners prayed that notice be issued to Mr. Ajay Pawar, the Tahsildar. By the application Exhibit 118, the petitioners prayed that Tahsildar Mr. Pawar be joined as party to the appeal. By the common order, both the applications have been rejected. Application at Exhibit 102 was for expeditious hearing of the appeal. In the final order, the appeal is directed to be fixed for final hearing. Hence, there can be no grievance about it. The gravamen of the applications of the petitioners at Exhibits 101 and 118 appears to be that though a stay for delivery of possession was granted by the first appellate court, The Tahsildar issued the notice for possession and thereby committed the contempt. Admittedly, the lower appellate court had not stayed the total execution of the decree. It had granted permission to the parties to proceed with the execution of the decree for partition and it only put a condition that the possession shall not be delivered. The proceedings were then sent to the Collector for effecting the partition. It appears that papers were sent by the Collector to the Tahsildar for partition. It appears that the Tahsildar did not notice that there was stay for delivery of possession and issued only the notice for possession. However, he did not deliver the possession on the fact of stay being brought to his notice. Thus, no breach of the order of the stay passed by the appellate court was committed. Hence, the decision of the trial court refusing to take action against the Tahsildar and joining him as a party appears to be proper requiring no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that the suit was iled in the year 1996 and the appeal was filed in the year 2002. Thus, for 14 long years the respondent no.1, who has obtained the decree for possession, has been kept out of possession of the property. The present writ petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to further delay the hearing of the appeal and thereby stall the delivery of possession. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. The lower appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and, in any event, within 6 months hereof. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6819 OF 2015 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Memorandam of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Office Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R. P. Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent – State. ….. ….. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND S.B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2015. P.C. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. The petition is disposed of as infructuous. (S. B. SHUKRE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil. .. Petitioner. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglormeratin, Thane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.1 to 3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Notice before admission returnable within four weeks. Govt. Pleader waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. In the meantime there will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e). (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 04, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the possession of the land in question which was subject matter of proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is still with the petitioner. It is further contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Voltas Limited vs. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008(5) Bom. C.R. 746. In that view of the matter, the proceedings which are pending under the Act after the said decision stands vitiated if the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner. The learned AGP seeks time till 12th January, 2010 to verify whether the possession of the land is still with the petitioner. In the circumstances, time granted. Place the matter on 12th January, 2010 for admission. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : MARCH 04, 2010. P.C. : The learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks further time of two weeks by way of last chance to seek instructions whether the possession of the land in question is still with the petitioner. Time granted by way of last chance. Place the matter on 19th March, 2010. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil .... Petitioner V/s. The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 P.C. Rule. Learned AGP for the State waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the sides, petition is taken up for hearing today. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Petitioner had submitted a scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was initially approved. However, subsequently, it was cancelled and the land was treated as excess. A notification under section 10(3) of the act, was published in the official Gazette on 01022007 and thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 18062007. This aspect has been highlighted by the Government in Para No.1 of the affidavitinreply. However, in para No.1 it is stated that possession of excess land admeasuring 3260 sq.mtrs., has not been taken. During the course of hearing, learned AGP submitted that there is nothing to show that any physical possession was taken, nor any panchanama was made. It is therefore, an indubitable fact that the aforesaid area remained in the possession of the petitioner all through out till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides that "the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect, (a) the vesting of any vacant land under subSection (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or the competent authority". Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any compensation in any manner and therefore, there is no question of any amount which is required to be paid back to the State Government as per subSection 2 of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is required to be noted that in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr., V/s. Additional Collector & Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) 2 Bom.C.R. 746 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that : Now so far as those lands which are owned by the petitioners in relation to which a notification under subsection 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act was issued and the order under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made are concerned, it is the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act which are relevant. Reading of Section 3 of the Repeal Act shows that it is a saving clause and subsection 1(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of any vacant land under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other words, vesting of vacant lands under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been taken over, is not saved. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made, the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government or by the competent authority. Therefore, on bare reading of the provisions, it can be said that by virtue of repeal, vesting of the land of the first petitioner in the State by virtue of declaration made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, is not saved. A submission on behalf of the State Government was made that by virtue of declaration made subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in relation to the petitioners' land, the land has vested in the Government, but there is no provision in the Repeal Act which divest the State Government of the ownership of the land. In our opinion, this submission has no substance. Firstly, because the purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting of those lands in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been repealed or made ineffective. Vesting of the lands in the State Government had occurred because of the Principal Act which has been repealed. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of "India Tobacco Co.Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & others, (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases 512" has observed that "Repeal" connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never been passed". Therefore, the effect of the repeal is to wipe out the statute from existence. Therefore, the normal effect of repeal is to wipe out everything done under the repealed statute except that which is saved either expressly or by necessary implication. In the same judgment i.e. "India Tobacco Co.Ltd." the Supreme Court has observed that the repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance, depending upon the intention of the Legislature. If the intention of the legislature in repealing the enactment was to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then that enactment will cease and would be deemed to have never exist at all, in so far as the part which the Legislature wants to wipe out totally is concerned. The principal submission of the State Government is that as the land of the petitioners has vested in the State Government because of the declaration made sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act and as there is no express provision made in the Repeal Act wiping out vesting of the land in the State Government, the State Government will continue to be the owner of the land. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. As indicated above, if it is assumed that there was no saving clause contained in the Repeal Act or had there been no section 6 of the General Clauses Act in existence then mere repeal of the enactment will wipe out the enactment out of existence and everything done under the enactment will also go away, and in this situation, therefore, to avoid that effect, the legislature enacts saving clause and the Parliamen t has also enacted section 6 of the General Clauses Act to save certain things from the effect of repeal. Therefore, it follows that except for that which is saved by the legislature by making specific provision or in the absence of specific provision by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, everything else under the Repeal Act is wiped out. In the present case by the saving clause contained in Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act what is saved is vesting of the land in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act possession of which was already taken over by the Government. In other words, therefore, vesting of land in the State Government in relation to those lands of which possession was not taken is wiped out. This position also becomes clear from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act is in the nature of a proviso or exception to section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. If subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act had not been enacted, vesting of even those lands in the State Government in relation to which the amount has been paid by the State Government to the land owner but possession has not been taken, will also stand wiped out. Because of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, now the land continues to be vested in the State Government though the possession of the land was not taken till the owner pays back the amount received by him. Had subsection (2) not been enacted because of the operation of section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act, the vesting of the land in the State Government would have been wiped out because the possession is not taken and the land owner would be entitled to retain the amount received by him from the State Government as also the land. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act was enacted by the legislature to ensure that the Government gets back the amount which is paid by it before the land reverts to the land owner. In other words the effect of the provision of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act is to postpone cancellation of vesting of the land in the State Government till the land owner pays back the amount received by him. In the case covered by Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, the land owner gets back title of the land only on payment of the amount that he had received under the Act from the government. In our opinion, what is contained in Section 4 of the Repeal Act also indicate that vesting of those lands possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government will revert back to the land owner. It is to be seen that the land is, by operation of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, vested in the State Government, so that the State Government can deal with that land under the Principal Act. Perusal of Section (4) of the Repeal Act shows that only the provisions of Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act continue to operate even after the repeal in relation to the land of which possession has been taken. In other words, after 29.11.2007 the provisions of Section 11,12,13 and 14 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government in relation to the land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, if it is held that even after the Repeal Act, the State Government continues to have title of the land of which it has not taken possession, then it will mean that the Government has become title holder of the land without paying any amount to the land owner and with no possibility of amount being determined and paid under Section 11 of the Principal Act because those provisions do not continue to apply after the repeal in relation to the lands possession of which has not been taken. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to refer to the scheme of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Section 10 of the Principal Act reads as under: "10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit: (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such others as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under subsection (3) (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (5) where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under subsection (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation: In this section, in sub section (1) of Sec. 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union Territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act,1924, means that State Government." Perusal of the above provisions shows that vesting of the land in the State Government occurs on publication of notification in the official Gazette under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thereafter, the competent authority gets power to make order directing the person who is in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the possession of the land to the State Government, and if that person does not deliver the possession then the Competent authority becomes competent to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thus, after 29.11.2007, the provisions of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government, therefore, in relation to that land with respect to which declaration under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made but possession has not been taken, the Competent authority will not be entitled to make an order directing the person in possession of the land to deliver the possession to the Government nor the Competent authority would be entitled to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act on failure of the person in possession to deliver the possession. Thus, the State Government will not be in a position to take possession of the land under the provisions of the Principal Act, it will also not be in a position to to determine the compensation of the land under Section 11 of the Principal Act and make payment to that compensation to the interested persons under Section 14 of the Principal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act keeps the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relating to determination of amount and payment of amount alive only in relation to the land possession of which has been taken by the Government. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that as a result of the Repeal Act neither any proceedings can continue nor the State Government can claim that the land continued to vest in it if possession of the land in relation to which declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made, has not been taken before 29.11.2007. In other words to claim that vesting of the land in the State Government is saved, it will have to be shown by the State Government that the possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act has been taken by the Government before 29.11.2007. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the fact that physical possession all through out remained with the petitioner, especially when the Government has not taken paper possession, nor any panchanama was made in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings abate and now the petitioner cannot be ask for recovering possession and now there is no question of taking possession. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: Pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30 OF 2021 Sharad Ragho Raul .. Petitioner Vs. Director of Civil Defence, Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2859 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30 OF 2021 The State of Maharashtra Applicant/Org. Respt. No.3 In the matter between: - Sharad Ragho Raul Vs. Petitioner Director of Civil Defence, Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar for petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 5/State & for applicant in IA/2859/2022. C0RAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & V. G. BISHT, J. DATE: MAY 2, 2022 PC : 1. We are informed by Mr. Samant, learned AGP appearing for the State, that an item in respect of the matter under consideration is expected to be placed before the Cabinet shortly for decision. 2. In such view of the matter, we defer hearing of the PIL petition till 6th June 2022 . The decision taken by the appropriate department of the Government after deliberations by the Cabinet shall be placed before us on that date. 3. In view of the aforesaid order, nothing survives for decision in Interim Application No. 2859 of 2022. The same stands disposed of. (V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.05.04 11:53:19 +0530

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP/Strate CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH D. NAIK J DATE : 14th June, 2021 P.C. : None appears for (Applicant / Respondent No. / APP). Stand over to 28/06/2021. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2021 Mrs. Tabassum Begum .. Applicant Vs. The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Hamminder Anand i/b H. S. Anand, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2021 PC. Issue notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the applicant is permitted to serve the respondent by way of private notice. Stand over to 26.07.2021. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 26th July, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 26/08/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE J DATE : 26th August, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 29/09/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 110 / 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (Zaidi) .. Applicant Versus. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent **** Mr. H.S. Anand, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State. **** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER,2021. P.C. : - Issue notice to the Respondent No.2 returnable on 7th December, 2021. Hamdast is permitted. In addition to the Court service, Applicant is permitted to serve the Respondent No.2 by private service and file affidavit of service. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) **Najeeb..**1/1 MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Date: 2021.10.12 16:44:05 +0530

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 TABASSUM BEGUM WIFE OF MOHAMMED WAS SAYED (ZAIDI) ) APPLICANT V/S. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ) RESPONDENTS * * * * Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/by. Mr. Harminder Aanand, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. S.V. Sonawane, APP for State-respondent no.1. Ms. Jameela Damani, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. Tuesday, 7th December, 2021. P.C. : Applicant is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.2. Offce to verify the prayers and place it before the appropriate Court as per the Roaster. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2021.12.07 16:33:00 +0530 (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 14th February, 2022 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 10/03/2022. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr.H S ANAND for Applicant Adv.Jameela Damani for Respondent No.1 Mohd Wasi Sayzed. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 22nd April, 2022 P.C. : The Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 14th July, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 28/07/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 28th July, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 13/09/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 22/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 22nd December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 30/01/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 30th January, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/02/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 3rd March, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 10th March, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 27/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 110 of 2021 Tabassum Begum W/o. Mohammed Wasi Sayed (Zaidi) ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. H. S. Anand, for the Applicant. None for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Coram : R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 15 July 2024 P.C. . The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant and his wife have resolved their disputes and they are staying together. The learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this application. Leave granted as prayed for. The application stands dismissed as withdrawn. R. N. Laddha, J.

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2435 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.14663 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Appellant Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 31st March, 2016 In view of the dismissal of Civil Application for condonation of delay vide Court's order dated 12/01/2016, hence this Civil Application for stay does not survive and same is disposed of. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 31.03.16