Dismissed

Prakash Narayan Tingre and Ors. v. Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, through Advocate for the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013WP/1646/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notification under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 imposing land restrictions. The High Court held that since no evidence proved the structures were built with valid permission or regularization applications were filed, it was not a fit case for writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed and the request for interim stay and further protection was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed as it is not a fit case for writ jurisdiction. Prayer for protection for one month is rejected.

Prakash Narayan Tingre and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

Deshmane

13.WP.1646-12.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1646 OF 2012

¶6

Prakash Narayan Tingre & Ors. Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sunip Sen a/w. V.P. Sawant and Mahesh Londhe i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Prashant Kamble i/b. Deepak More, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶12

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.R. Rajguru a/w. A.R. Varma, Advocate for UOI.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 13^th JUNE, 2013

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Clause (1) of order dated 9^th May, 2013 reads thus :

¶17

“. There is nothing placed on record to show that the structures of the petitioners have been constructed after obtaining a valid permission. If the petitioners want Writ Court to entertain the petition for deciding large number of issues raised, the petitioners will have to demolish the structures. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions whether the petitioners have applied for regularization. The learned counsel

1 / 3

13.WP.1646-12.doc

appearing for the Respondent No.5 states that there is no such application pending.”

¶22

The petitioners are claiming that the structures subject matter of the petition have come up in the village prior to 1954. The Ordinance Factories were set up subsequently. The challenge in the Petition is to the notification dated 13^th September, 1990 under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 by which restrictions were imposed under clause (c) of Section 7 of the said Act on the lands in the concerned village. Today, when the petition is called out, no document is placed on record to show that the structures of the petitioners have been constructed after obtaining valid permissions. There is nothing placed on record to show that any application for regularization of the structures was made by the petitioners.

¶23

Thus, this is a case where the petitioners are not able to produce any material to show that the structures in respect of which the relief is claimed by them have been constructed after obtaining permission of the concerned local authority. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the Petition on merits. The petitioners have prayed for interim relief of staying the notice dated 28^th July, 2011 issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation by which the petitioners have been called upon to demolish the structures.

¶24

In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

2 / 3

13.WP.1646-12.doc

Constitution of India. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks protection for a period of one month. We find that though the Petition is pending from the year 2012, this Court has not granted an ad-interim relief. Hence the prayer is rejected. We make it clear that this order will not prevent the petitioners from making an application for regularization of the structures in accordance with law.

¶30

(A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶31

3 / 3

Prakash Narayan Tingre and Ors. v. Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, through Advocate for the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Narayan Tingre and Ors. v. Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, through Advocate for the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule Vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Princpal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dpet and Ors.

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.Ii

Prashant Narayan Phadtare Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.22, Pune and Ors.