Dismissed

Giridhar Gopal Suryawanshi and Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Collector and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2012WP/3285/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition regarding non-communication of an order rejecting an application for regularization of encroachment. The court directed the respondent to communicate the order within four weeks and disposed of the petition without a costs order.

What did the court decide?

The respondent no.1 is directed to communicate the order dated 11.03.2011 to the petitioners within a period of four weeks.

Giridhar Gopal Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs State of Mah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP3285-11

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3285/2011

¶5

(GIRIDHAR GOPAL SURYAWANSHI & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER)

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Shri N.A. Vyawahare, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.A. Thakre, A.G.P. for the R-1. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, counsel for the R-2.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 22, 2012 .

¶10

The petitioners have filed the instant petition with a prayer that the respondent no.1 may be directed to decide the application of the petitioners for regularization of encroachment. According to the petitioners, though the application was made long back, the respondent no.1 had not decided the same.

¶11

The respondent no.1 has filed the affidavit-inreply and has denied that the respondent no.1 has not decided the application of the petitioners for regularization of encroachment. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that by an order dated 11.03.2011, the Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the application on the ground that the encroachments are made by the petitioners at Fawara Chowk, which is a busy and crowded place and, hence, the same cannot be regularized.

¶12

WP3285-11

¶13

¶14

Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that though the application of the petitioners is rejected by an order dated 11.03.2011, the petitioners were not aware of the same as the said order is never communicated to any of the petitioners.

¶15

If that be so, the respondent no.1 is directed to communicate the order dated 11.03.2011 to the petitioners within a period of four week. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the order dated 11.03.2011 in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

APTE

Giridhar Gopal Suryawanshi and Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Collector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giridhar Gopal Suryawanshi and Ors. v. State of Mah. Thr. Collector and Anr.

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

Fulchand S/O Babulal Kurmawanshi Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Karanja Lad and 2 Others

M/S. Ashoka Safe Deposit Vaulet Company, Vs Adminstrator, Samta Shahakar and 6 Ors.

Dasharath Pandu Rathod Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Addl. Collector Buldhana and 2 Others

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali Vs the Divisonal Caste Scrutiny Committee No 2 Akola Thr Its President, Collector Office Premises

Gramdarshan Shikshan Mandal Thr. Its Secty. Pt Dhok Vs the Asst. Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur and Ors.

Bank of India Thr. Its Asst. Manager Vs Ravi Mulchand Rajsevati and Anr.