Disposed

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012WP/1345/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of their application for land development by a corporation. The High Court held that the pendency of a suo motu PIL concerning reserved public utility plots did not bar consideration of the current application, as the petitioners' land was not reserved for such purposes. The petition was disposed of with directions to consider the application.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of observing that respondent authorities must consider the application filed by petitioners for development of land.

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2011 "Prabha Farm Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶5

¶6

Mr. D.V. Soman,Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. S.N. Pagar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶8

DATE :- 14TH MARCH, 2012.

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1] The petitioners have approached this court with a grievance that though the petitioners have submitted application to the respondent corporation for permission to develop the petitioners' land, the said application is not being considered on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of the orders passed by this court in W.P. No. 5730/2007.

¶11

2] Shri Pagare, learned counsel for the Corporation, submits that as a matter of fact, the State Government has rejected the proposal of the present petitioner, for development of the said land on the ground that the land of the petitioner is in the center of "No development Zone" and as such, if permission as sought is granted, it would amount to spot zoning.

¶12

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2011 "Prabha Farm Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶15

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶16

¶17

3] The subject matter of W.P. No. 5730 of 2007, which has been entertained by this court as a suo motu public interest litigation, is de-reservations of open plots in the city, which were reserved for play grounds, garden and other public purposes.

¶18

4] The order of restraint, therefore, would be applicable only to such of the plots, which are reserved for play ground, garden and other public utility purposes. Admittedly, the land of the petitioners is not reserved for such purpose.

¶19

5] In so far as the contention of Shri Pagare is concerned, the letter addressed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, would reveal that , as a matter of fact, the application of the present petitioners has already been rejected on the ground that in view of the existing development proposals, the petitioners' application cannot be considered, inasmuch as, if such an application is considered, it would amount to spot zoning.

¶20

6] In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by observing that the pendency of W.P. No. 5730 of 2007, would not come in the way of the respondent authorities in considering the application filed by the present petitioners, for development

¶21

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2011 "Prabha Farm Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶24

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶25

of land. Needless to state that if any such application is filed, it will be considered by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with law. Needless further state that while considering the application by the present petitioner, the respondent authorities would also consider the communication addressed by the State Government dated 25.6.2010.

¶26

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶27

grt/-

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Mah 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

Hanumant Achyut Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nilkantha Parappa Bhandare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sampatrao Bhanaji More and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pratap Deva Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.