Allowed

Shri. Balkrishna Jagannath Lad v. Indian Postal Dept, through Chief Postmaster Gen. Maharashtra Circle and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014CAW/2293/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted permission to the applicant to construct a compound wall or fencing to protect his property from encroachments, directing the third respondent to issue formal permission within three weeks, noting that the benefit accrues to BSNL. The parent writ petition was placed for hearing as fresh matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third Respondent to issue formal permission within three weeks for the construction of a compound wall or fencing.

Shri. Balkrishna Jagannath Lad Vs Indian Postal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

caw-2293.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2293 OF 2014 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1524 OF 2013

¶6

Shri. Balkrishna Jagannath Lad

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Indian Postal Department and Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Athavale a/w P.S. Gujar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Sarang Satish Aradhye, for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 13^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.

¶13

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and

¶14

the learned counsel representing the third Respondent. Applicant is the Writ Petitioner. The prayer of the Applicant in the main Petition is based on notice served by him under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The land subject matter of the Petition is described in paragraph 1 of the application which was initially reserved for the Postal Department staff quarters and subsequently for BSNL office and staff quarters.

¶15

The limited prayer in the Civil Application is for seeking a direction against the third Respondent to allow the proposal dated 2^nd September, 2014 submitted by the Applicant. The proposal is for seeking permission to construct either a compound wall or fencing for

¶16

2 caw-2293.14

¶17

protecting the property subject matter of Petition from encroachments. Various instances of encroachments have been set out. The apprehension of the Applicant is that in view of the reservation in the sanctioned development plan, in the light of Section 46 of the MRTP Act, 1966, the Municipal Council may not grant permission.

¶18

It is true that in the last sanctioned development plan, there is a reservation on the land in question. The prayer made in this application is essentially for protecting the land from encroachments. Even if the Applicant fails in the Writ Petition, the benefit of fencing the property will accrue to BSNL for whose purpose reservation is shown. It is obvious that even if permission is granted by the Municipal Council in terms of prayer clause (a), Applicant will not be entitled to claim any equity. Subject to what is observed above, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause (a). A formal permission shall be issued by the third Respondent within a period of three weeks from today. Place the main Writ Petition on 21^st November, 2014 in the category of 'Fresh Matters'. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant states that notice of the Writ Petition has been served to all concerned Respondents.

¶19

Petition shall be shown under the caption of “Fresh Matters.

Shri. Balkrishna Jagannath Lad v. Indian Postal Dept, through Chief Postmaster Gen. Maharashtra Circle and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Balkrishna Jagannath Lad v. Indian Postal Dept, through Chief Postmaster Gen. Maharashtra Circle and Ors.

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

Dilip Ramchandra Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Bramhanand Bhagwansingh Pardeshi Vs District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Smt. Chhaya Rajendra Zende and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Maruti Sayaji Malusare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept