Dismissed

Subhash S/O Hiralal Dongre v. State of Maharshtra through Collector, Gondia and Others

Bombay HC29 Oct 2013WP/5697/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged demolition of his encroached house under Section 53(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. Court held petitioner had other remedies available and he encroached on land; petition dismissed with no order as to costs though points kept open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Points raised kept open.

Subhash S/O Hiralal Dongre Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp5697-13

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 5697 of 2013 Subhash s/o Hiralal Dongre.

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Mah. And others..

¶7

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

¶8

Mr. G.G. Bade, counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : OCTOBER 29, 2013

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat on 8.4.2013 seeking to demolish the encroachment made by the petitioner on the property of the Grampanchayat is violative of the provision of Section 53(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. Since the house property of the petitioner is already demolished, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the Grampanchayat in demolishing the house is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages due to the illegal demolition of the house.

¶12

According to the petitioner, though several other persons have also encroached upon the land of the Grampanchayat, the petitioner has been singled out and

¶13

wp5697-13

¶14

2/2

¶15

action has been taken against the petitioner.

¶16

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the writ petition, as also the prayer made therein that the petitioner has other remedies open and the petitioner ought not have moved this court for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. Admittedly, the petitioner has encroached upon the land of the Grampanchayat and hence the petitioner cannot claim that his house ought not have been demolished when no action was taken by the Grampanchayat against the other encroachers.

¶17

Since the petitioner can seek the relief before the appropriate court/forum, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

The points raised in the petition are, however, kept open.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

Hirekhan

Subhash S/O Hiralal Dongre v. State of Maharshtra through Collector, Gondia and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash S/O Hiralal Dongre v. State of Maharshtra through Collector, Gondia and Others

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

Shri Suresh Balu Rathod and Ors. Vs Gramudhar Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Sec. and Ors.

National Womens Welfare Society Darwha Dist. Yavatmal through President S.P. Mazoor Ahemad Khan Vs Joint Charity Commissioner Amravati and Others

Uttam Thavara Rathod Vs Zilla Parishad Gondia through Chief Executive Officer and 4 Others

Koundinya Bahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, through Its President Machhindra Ramrao Savle and Anothe Vs State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Education Dept. Mumbai and Others

Shri. Navchetan Education Society, through Its Chairman, Nagpur and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Maharashtra State Services and Education Dept. through Secretary,and Other

Suresh S/O Shaligram Masram Vs State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Department, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 2 Others