Partly allowed

Smt. Ranobai Bhagirath Pattewar and Ors. v. Shri. Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad

Bombay HC19 Dec 2014CAI/182/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application challenging State actions regarding land allotment. It held that most prayers were misconceived as actions stemmed from voluntary statements, not operative Court orders, but allowed one prayer regarding amendment.

What did the court decide?

Prayer clause (b) allowed with amendment within three weeks; liberty granted to contest other actions under law.

Smt. Ranobai Bhagirath Pattewar and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

CAI182-19.12

1/2

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2014 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.36 OF 2010

¶7

Ranobai Bhagirath Pattewar and others ..Applicants. and Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad ...Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Sanjay Digambar Thokade for the Applicant in CA1/182/2014. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶10

Mr. Akshay Deshmukh i/b Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Respondent Nos.5 and 6A

¶11

….. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶12

^th December, 2014.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants. Perused the orders passed by this Court in the PIL. The order dated 3^rd December, 2010 records an assurance of the learned 'A' panel counsel appearing for the State that unauthorized construction will be removed and vacant possession of the land in question will be handed over to the persons entitled to get the land within two weeks from the said date.

¶15

Thereafter, by the order dated 28^th April, 2014 a direction was issued by this Court to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur to file an affidavit setting out compliance with the statements recorded in the order dated 3^rd December, 2010 and also for reporting compliance with the statement in the order dated 21^st December, 2010. The order dated 29^th October, 2014 makes a reference to the affidavit of Mr. Shahaji Rajaram Pawar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur dated 31^st July, 2014. The said order records that the affidavit is completely silent as

CAI182-19.12

2/2

PNP

regards the action which the State Government proposes to take as regards those persons who are illegally occupying the land allotted to the concerned society. An affidavit was directed to be filed setting out the action which SubDivisional Officer proposes to take against the persons who are unauthorizedly in possession.

¶20

All prayers except prayer clause (b) of this Application proceed on an erroneous assumption that there were substantive directions issued by this Court in the PIL. All actions which are taken by the authorities are in terms of the voluntary statements recorded in the order passed by this Court on 3^rd December, 2010. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants that the alleged illegal actions have been taken by the officers of the State on the basis of the orders of this Court. If according to the case of the Applicants, the actions of the officer are illegal, it is for them to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for challenging the actions. Therefore, prayer clauses (c ) to (f) of this Application cannot be granted in this Application.

¶21

However, prayer clause (b) is allowed. Amendment to be carried out by the Writ Petitioner within three weeks from today. As far as prayer clauses (c ) to (f) are concerned, we grant liberty to the Applicants to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶22

5. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(A.S. Oka, J.)

¶24

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Smt. Ranobai Bhagirath Pattewar and Ors. v. Shri. Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranobai Bhagirath Pattewar and Ors. v. Shri. Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad

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

Namdeo Hambira Babar Annd Ors. Vs Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Ors.

Namdeo Hambira Babar Annd Ors. Vs Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Ors.

Padmini Raje Mohite Vs Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav (Sandhya Surdas Gaikwad) and Ors.

Geeta Avadesh Jaiswal Vs the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Nirmala Hiranand Rajwani, through Power of Attorny Holder Shri H. H. Rajwani Vs the Ulhasnagar Mun. Corp. through Mun. Commissioner, Shri Balaji Khatgaonkar and or His Delegatee

Shri Bhayalal Bhiku Yadav through Power of Attorney Holder Shri H. H. Rajwani Vs the Ulhasnagar Mun. Corp. through Mun. Commissioner, Shri Balaji Khatgaonkar and or His Delegatee