Dismissed

Ronald Gonsalves v. Mr. Ashok Jadhav and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2009WP/1940/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the construction of public toilets on petitioner's land, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for an alternate remedy. The petition was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek that remedy.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petition granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply to Civil Court.

Ronald Gonsalves Vs Mr. Ashok Jadhav and 2 Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 [-1-]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1940 OF 2008

¶5

 Mr.Ronald Thomas Gonsalves ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Mr.Ashok Jadhav (M.L.A.) &
 Anrs. ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr.V.E.Pereira Advocate for Petitioner
 Ms.Manjusha Kumbhar Advocate i/by Swapnil
 A.Wardkar for Respondent No.1
 Mr.D.A.Nalawade Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.2
 Ms.S.M.Mondle Adv. for Respondent No.3

¶9

 CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
 DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2009

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 1. The Petitioner has approached this Court
 invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction seeking a
 writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
 direction for removal of toilet blocks constructed
 by Respondent No.1 out of funds available to
 M.L.As. for public use.

¶12

 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is
 owner of land bearing CTS No.347/A and other two

¶13

 [-2-]

¶14

 toilets have been constructed by encroaching upon
 his land and without seeking proper permission from
 competent authority i.e. Municipal Corporation or
 MHADA. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf
 of Respondent-Corporation, it is stated that they
 have given due permission for construction of the
 toilet in question on the basis that public toilets
 were in existence prior to the year 1985 as per
 their record. So far as Respondent no.1 is
 concerned, Respondent no.1 has tendered affidavit
 in reply, which is taken on record, wherein he has
 pleaded that he has constructed toilets after
 obtaining necessary permission from various
 authorities and it is in the larger interest of the
 public.

¶15

 3. In writ jurisdiction, we do not propose to
 examine the various issues which arise in the
 matter.

¶16

 4. It will be proper for the Petitioner to seek
 alternate remedy by approaching the Civil Court so
 as to get the encroachment removed.

¶17

 5. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶18

 [-3-]

¶19

 Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to
 withdraw the petition to seek alternate remedy.
 Permission to withdraw the petition is granted with
 the aforesaid liberty.

¶20

6. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶21

[J.N.PATEL, J.]

¶22

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Ronald Gonsalves v. Mr. Ashok Jadhav and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ronald Gonsalves v. Mr. Ashok Jadhav and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Employees Union Vs M/S Santosh Industries and Ors.

Manohar Santu Sherkar Vs M/S. Gestetner (India) Ltd.

Haribhau N. Nikam Vs the Chairman Padmn. Vasantdada Patil High School

Crown Maritime Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prabha P. Shenai

M/S. Deepal Agencies Private Limited and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Mrs. Mira G. Khandagale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.