Dismissed

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Bombay HC15 Jul 2010PIL/12/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner challenged the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation's decision to reserve land in the Development Plan for a Gol Market and Garden. After an affidavit was filed by the Respondent detailing the area reserved (3,900 sq. m.) and the progress of tendering and development work, and finding no contrary evidence, the Court held there was no reason for

What did the court decide?

The PIL is dismissed subject to the Respondent's undertaking to maintain the demarcated garden and market areas for public use.

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja Vs Pimpri Chinchwad… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

kps

¶3

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.12/2010

¶5

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja. ..Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ..Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.V. Anturkar a/w Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

Date : 15^th July, 2010.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 This matter was heard for sometime on earlier occasion and we had on 01^st July, 2010 after referring to the paragraph No.2 of the reply, called upon the Municipal Corporation to clarify the extent of reservation of market, garden and children playing area by placing necessary documents.

¶13

2 In furtherance of this order, an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Engineer, Town Planning Department of the Respondent Corporation in which it has been stated that the land bearing City Survey No.1310/1 was, for the first time, reserved for the purpose of Gol Market in the Development Plan being Reservation No.160. The

¶14

¶15

entire area which is reserved is 3900 square meters. In paragraph No.2 of this affidavit it is pointed out that the decision is taken to develop the said plot of land as market and garden. The tenders were invited for development and the contractor has completed 80% of the work of commercial complex and the Municipal Corporation has spent a sum of Rs.1,61,25,600/- on the said project.

¶16

3 We have heard Mr.Anturkar learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Prabhu learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Corporation at some length. Our attention has been invited to page No.9 of the petition which sets out the demarcation insofar as the garden area, children playing area and total plot of land. That also gives the details of the area which would be occupied by the shops and offices and so also parking space.

¶17

4 After some arguments, both the parties have confirmed the total area as above. The 1^st Respondent states that the reservation in the Development Plan would be worked out and implemented on the said basis. 5 After having perused the said details together with the affidavits of the Respondent and finding that there is no rejoinder placed on record to controvert the contents of the said affidavits, so also the public interest being subserved, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Respondent/Planning Authority. It has been clarified that the market would be round shaped having shops which would be accessible from all sides and so also part of the plot not being capable of used as a market that part is designated as a Garden which would be open for the public. There is no reason

¶18

¶19

to interfere with the decision of the Planning Authority/Respondent of implementing the subject reservation. We do not find this is a case where there is any contravention of the reservation in the Development Plan. Hence, we do not think it necessary to go into the aspect whether the prescribed procedure is followed while reserving the plot as above. Since the reservation as Gol Market is being implemented in accordance with the Development Plan and necessary rules; the present Public Interest Litigation does not survive and the same is dismissed. However, we accept the statements made on behalf of the Respondent on affidavit that the area which is demarcated as garden, children playing area and market area would be maintained and as such, the Garden would be for the use of public. 6 The petition is dismissed.

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

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

Liyakat Shaikh Vs Metropolitan Commissioner and Ors.

Mrs. Shaina N. C. and 10 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Murti Upadhye Vs B.M.C. and 3 Ors.

Narendra S/O Jaggannathji Mohata and 4 Ors. Vs U.O.I. Thr. Pr. Secty., Min. of Environment and Forest and 3 Ors.

Marine Drive (Chief) Welfare Associaltion and Anr. Vs State of Maharastra and 4 Ors.

Pushkar M. Damle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Jairaj Pathak, the Municipal Commissioner of B.M.C. and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Sahdev Tupe and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Mrs.Giribala Sangam Sagre Vs Mrs.Sharadha Hemant Joshi and Ors.

Rajaram Shivrudra Koshti and Anr. Vs Mahadev Dhulappa Khawashe

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maruti Mura Vagare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar Vs Municipal Corporation for City of Thane and Ors.