Dismissed

Milind Ramakant Ekbote v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2008PIL/141/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL concerning unauthorized construction on forest land. The court held that it was unnecessary to entertain the petition as the identical matter had already been decided in a connected writ petition. The State was denied time to file an affidavit in reply.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; State denied time to file affidavit in reply.

Milind Ramakant Ekbote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.141 OF 2007

¶5

 Milind Ramakant Ekbote .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Ms.Shubhada Khot for the petitioner

¶9

 Ms.J.S.Pawar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. In view of the fact that this court has

¶14

 already disposed of Writ Petition No.142 of 2004 by
 judgment and order dated 30.01.2008 which has also
 disposed of other connected matters i.e. Criminal
 Writ Petition No.1966 of 2004 and Criminal Writ
 Petition No.1862 of 2004, it is not necessary for
 us to further entertain the Writ Petition which is
 based on subsequent development on the subject land
 relating to unauthorised construction.

¶15

¶16

 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶17

 the petitioner that the proposal to regularise
 unauthorised construction is forwarded to the State
 Government so as to avoid implementation of the
 orders of this court.

¶18

 3. The learned Addl.G.P. points out to this
 court that the issue has been dealt by the bench
 which has disposed of Writ Petition No.142 of 2004.
 We are quite sure that the State would refrain from
 regularising any construction on the subject land
 for two reasons. Firstly, this court has directed
 the authorities to remove encroachment and
 unauthorised construction and secondly, the land in
 question is forest land and under the Forest
 (Conservation) Act, forest land cannot be used for
 non forest purpose unless permission of specially
 constituted committee under the Ministry of
 Environment and Forest is obtained as held by the
 Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman
Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. reported
in 2008 (6) Scale 499.

¶19

¶20

 4. Petition is disposed of.

¶21

 5. After we dictated the order, the learned
 Addl G.P. states that she may be granted time to
 file affidavit in reply in the matter. In our
 view, as the State has failed to file any affidavit
 in reply though the petition is pending since long
 and an identical petition has been disposed of
 after considering the affidavit in reply filed by
 the State in Public Interest Litigation No.142 of
 2004, we do not think any opportunity should be
 given to the State in the matter. In case of any
 contingency, the State can always approach this
 court and seek appropriate direction / order by

¶22

 moving the court through interim application.

¶23

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶24

 ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J )

Milind Ramakant Ekbote v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Ramakant Ekbote v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. R. Tripathi Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaban Ali Masum Ali and Anr. Vs M/S. Samiksha Construction Co. and Ors.

Ashfaque Chaudhri Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Jayant Vasantrao Ghosalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashta and Ors.

Navi Mumbai Chamber of Housing Industry Trust Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Ors.

Niraj Gunde Vs the Municipal Commissioner and 5 Others

Shree Kutchi Advocates Welfare Association and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Arun a. Trivedi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harishchandra Valku Bhagat (Decd.)by Lrs.- Hirubai Harishchandra Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Baburao Daji Virkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Sonu Wani Vs Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan-Andolan Nyas and Ors.

Praful Bhagwan Waghule Vs the Thane District Collector and Ors.

Sherbanoo J. Dawoodani and Anr. Vs State Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.