Dismissed

Dilip Dadu Kamble and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2006PIL/63/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered that the present Public Interest Litigation is not bona fide and is actuated with an ulterior motive. The petitioners, being established beneficiaries of a final slum rehabilitation scheme, were not granted relief to challenge the reduction of the reserved area.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed for not being bona fide and actuated by ulterior motive.

Dilip Dadu Kamble and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

P.I.L. NO.63 OF 2005

¶4

Dilip Dadu Kamble & ors.Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra & ors.Respondents

¶5

Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr.P.M.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent no.1.

¶7

Mr.R.G.Ketkar for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶8

Mr.K.Y.Mandlik for the respondents 4 and 5.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 1st February 2006

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Mr.Madhav Jamdar, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr.R.G.Ketkar, the learned counsel for the
respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.K.Y.Mandlik, the learned
counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

¶13

2. The petitioners claim to be occupying various slum
structures standing on city survey nos. 1046 to 1054,
Nana peth, Pune. City Survey no.1053 is shown as
children’s playground in the development plan for Pune
city. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the
sanctioned plan of the proposed slum Rehabilitation
scheme, the said reservation of 4000 sq.mtrs. is sought
to be reduced to about 1320 sq.mtrs. and, therefore, by
means of this writ petition, they seek to challenge the
scheme of slum redevelopment undertaken on city survey

¶14

¶15

nos.1046 to 1054, Nana peth, Pune.

¶16

3. It appears from the reply that city survey nos.
1046 to 1054 situate at Nana peth, Pune were declared as
slum area under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971 on 14th February 1984 and the declaration appeared
in the Maharashtra Government Gazettee issued on 23rd
February 1984. In the survey conducted pursuant to the
notification under Section 4(1), the petitioners or
their relatives were found to be occupying the huts
thereat. Before the scheme was sanctioned, the
procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed.

¶17

4. That the petitioners are beneficiaries of the slum
scheme sanctioned under the Act of 1971 is not in
challenge.

¶18

5. The slum scheme having become final and operative
and the petitioners being beneficiaries thereunder, we
are satisfied that this Public Interest Litigation is
not bonafide and honest and is actuated with ulterior
motive and does not deserve to be entertained.

¶19

. Disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(R. M. LODHA, J.)

¶21

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Dilip Dadu Kamble and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Dadu Kamble and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaram Kantha Patil and Ors. Vs Maaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Dilip Vrajlal Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Mr.Sushan Kunjuraman Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve Vs the District Superintendent of Police, Sangli and Anr.

Narayan S/O.Namdev Yadav and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corp.of the City of Nashik and Ors.

Janardan Kundlikrao Pharande and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Pollution Control and Ors.

shri r.r. tripathi Vs the union of india through ministry of personnel public grievances and pension

Advay Prashant Hiray Vs the Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Ramaswamy Seshadri Mohan and 3 Ors. Vs M/S. Anmol Enterprises and 5 Ors.

Bharat P. Valia Vs Parfulla R. Mehta

Bharat P. Valia Vs Dr . Mahendra Ratilal Mehta

Jagdish Daswani and Ors. Vs the Principal Sec., Law and Judiciary Dept. Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ram Maheshwary and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Iqbal Abdul Quadir Bargir . Vs the State of Maharashtra .