Disposed

Devibai Narayandas Chhabda v. the Junior Engineer, Dhom Irrigation Section and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2010WP/9513/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Superintending Engineer to take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner regarding the use of vehicles on disputed land, while permitting two-wheeler use temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to decide on confirmation or setting aside the impugned order by Jan 31, 2011; petitioner allowed to use two-wheelers with care till decision.

Devibai Narayandas Chhabda Vs the Junior Engineer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9513 OF 2010

¶4

Sou.Devibai Chhabada Rural Education Society, Satara V/s The Junior Engineer, Dhom Irrigation Section, District Satara & Ors.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.V.D.Patil, Govt.Pleader for the State.

¶8

CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATE: 20TH DECEMBER, 2010.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by

¶12

the Branch Engineer of the Dhom Irrigation Department, Anewadi No. 3, dated 5^th October, 2010. By the said order the said engineer has restrained the petitioner from using the four wheeler vehicles as also the six wheeler vehicles on the disputed portion of the land.

¶13

The petitioner submits that prior to the said order, the authority -has already taken a decision allowing the petitioner to use the said portion of the land for the purpose of their access to their educational complex and for asphalting the road in question.

¶14

Since the impugned order is passed by the Branch Engineer without taking into consideration the order passed by the authority on 17^th December, 2009, we direct the Respondent No.4, Superintending Engineer and the Administrator, Maharashtra Krishna Valley

¶15

¶16

Development Corporation, Pune to take a fresh decision in the matter in

¶17

connection with the subject matter, after hearing the petitioner.

¶18

The Respondent No.4 is directed to decide as to whether the impugned order passed by the Branch Engineer is required to be confirmed or set aside altogether. The said decision be taken latest by 31^st January, 2011 and it be communicated to the petitioner.

¶19

However, till the decision is taken by the Respondent No.4, the petitioner will not take his four wheeler vehicles & six wheeler vehicles from the disputed land in question.

¶20

It is needless to say that till the decision is taken by the Respondent No.

¶21

4, the petitioner can use his two wheelers on the disputed land in question, by taking appropriate care and filling the trenches.

¶22

Petition is disposed of accordingly in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR. J.)

¶24

(P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)

Devibai Narayandas Chhabda v. the Junior Engineer, Dhom Irrigation Section and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devibai Narayandas Chhabda v. the Junior Engineer, Dhom Irrigation Section and 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

Xlo Machine Tools Employees Associates Vs Xlo Machine Tools Ltd. and Other

S. Durai Vs Union of India and Ors.

Municipal Council (Akkalkot) and Anr. Vs Siddharudh Tukaram Pujari and Ors.

Vishal Gaikwad and 3 Ors. Vs the Secretary, Revenue and Forest and 4 Ors.

Retailers Association of India (Rai) Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Yeshwant Surve Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.