Disposed

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

Bombay HC16 Oct 2008PIL/57/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged unauthorised construction and a resolution regarding land reservation. The court disposed of the petition based on representations from the State and Municipal Council that steps were being taken, with directions to act expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation disposed of. Parties to abide by statements. Municipal Council directed to take action expeditiously.

Jayant Vasantrao Ghosalkar and Ors. Vs the State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 57 OF 2008

¶5

Jayant Vasantrao Ghosalkar and others

¶6

).. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

).. Respondents

¶10

Mr R G Ketkar i/b Mr S M Sabrad for the Petitioners. Mr P M Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr G H Keluskar for Respondent No.5. Mr V A Thorat i/b Mr Niranjan Mogre for Respondent No.6

¶11

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED: 16TH OCTOBER 2008 .

¶12

P.C.

¶13

In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the Municipal Council at Uran to take action in accordance with law on the unauthorised construction raised at Survey Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11-A1 situated at Mouje Mhatavali, Taluka Uran, District Raigad and not to grant sanction to the resolution dated 22^nd March 2007 and other consequential reliefs. It is not necessary for us to notice the facts giving rise to the filing of the present Public Interest Litigation in any greater detail in view of the stand taken by the State Government as well as the

¶14

-2-

¶15

Municipal Council before the Court.

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the survey number in question was reserved for a garden-cum-school. The proposal for change of the reservation has already been withdrawn by the Government vide its letter dated 7^th February 2008. The learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council states that they had not sanctioned any plan but the construction at the site had been started for which they had served notice upon Respondent No.6. It is further stated that the Corporation shall take action in accordance with law and ensure that no unauthorized construction will be permitted on the site in question.

¶17

The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 without prejudice to his rights and contentions submits that they would move the Government for pursuing the matter in furtherance to the letter dated 1^st April 2008. It is open to the Petitioners as well to challenge the order of the Government if now the reservation is changed, if permissible in accordance with law.

¶18

Be that as it may, in view of the statements made on behalf of the State and the Municipal Council, nothing survives in the present

¶19

-3-

¶20

Public Interest Litigation and the same is disposed of accordingly. Parties would obviously abide by their respective statements. We hope that the Municipal Council will take action expeditiously. No order as to costs.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

S. A. BOBDE, J.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Milind Ramakant Ekbote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Praful Bhagwan Waghule Vs the Thane District Collector and Ors.

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

Milind Ramakant Ekbote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sameer Tambekar Vs Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai and Anr.

Ratan Y Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Syed Asgharally Sattarally Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhav Rajaram Gavai Vs Gokhale Education Society and Ors.

Laxminarayan Jagannath Kalantri Vs Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors.

Raghunath Yeshwant Gadhave Vs the Tahsildar - Phaltan and Ors.

Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. .

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

Sadanand Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.