Allowed

Prakash Tukaram Neel v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2014PIL/108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL challenging land permissions and a sale deed despite a subsequent notification rendering the MIDC Act provisions inapplicable. The Court allowed an inquiry into alleged illegal structures.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Collector to appoint an officer to inspect lands for illegal structures and submit a report; Collector to take action if illegalities are found.

Prakash Tukaram Neel Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-108.10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.108 OF 2010

¶5

Shri Prakash Tukaram Neel. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Sagar Joshi for the Petitioner. Shri S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri P.P. Chavan i/by Navdeep Vora and Associates for Respondent No.3. Shri Amit Sale for Respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : 3RD APRIL 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned AGP for the first and second Respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent.

¶10

The Petitioner is relying upon a Notification issued on 23^rd January 2008 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short “the MID Act”). By the said Notification, with effect from 31^st January 2008, the areas mentioned in the schedule appended to the said Notification were declared as an “Industrial Area” under Clause (g) of Section 2 of the MIDC Act. The

¶11

ash 2

¶12

pil-108.10

¶13

case made out in the Petition is that an Application was made for grant of permission under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ( for short “the said Act”) and the fourth Respondent who was at the relevant time the Collector of the District Thane granted a permission under Section 44 of the said Act to one Kathod Mahesh Patil and others who are the owners of the land more particularly described in the order dated 31^st March 2008. By the said order, permission was granted to use the lands specified in the said order for construction of a cold storage. It is alleged that contrary to the MIDC Act, the said original owners executed a Sale Deed by transferring the lands in question to the fifth Respondent. The Sale Deed was executed on 29^th July 2008.

¶14

Various contentions have been raised in the Petition. It is contended that the permission granted on 31^st March 2008 is itself illegal. It is contended that the transaction in the form of the Sale Deed is also illegal. Lastly it is contended that the fifth Respondent has carried out illegal construction of structures on the lands in question and no action has been taken by the Collector.

¶15

A copy of a Gazette Notification dated 17^th August 2010 issued by the State Government has been placed on record. The Notification records that to the areas specified in this Notification dated

¶16

ash 3

¶17

pil-108.10

¶18

17^th August 2010, the provisions of Chapter VI of the MID Act shall cease to apply with effect from 20^th August 2010. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken inspection of the said Notification and he does not dispute that in view of the said Notification, now reliance cannot be placed on the Notification dated 23^rd August 2008 ( Exhibit-A to the Petition ) in relation to the land subject matter of the order dated 31^st March 2008 and the sale deed dated 29^th July 2008.

¶19

It is true that when the permission was granted by the Collector and when the Sale Deed was executed, the Notification dated 23^rd August 2008 was in force. In view of the subsequent Notification, in writ jurisdiction, interference cannot be made with the permission granted on 31^st March 2008 as well as the sale transaction.

¶20

However, the contention of the Petitioner is that the fifth Respondent has carried out illegal construction on the lands in question. Therefore, appropriate directions will have to be issued to the Collector to initiate necessary action, if the fifth Respondent has made any illegal construction.

¶21

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

ash

pil-108.10

ORDER :

(a) We direct the second Respondent- the Collector of Thane to appoint any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector who will visit the lands occupied by the 5^th Respondent. He will submit a report as regards the alleged illegal structures constructed by the 5^th Respondent and the alleged illegal activities by the 5^th Respondent. Report shall be submitted by the officer so nominated to the Collector. If the Collector on the basis of the report finds that any illegalities have been committed, he shall take appropriate steps against the 5^th Respondent in accordance with law;

¶27

(b) The Petition is disposed of with above terms;

¶28

(c) The Collector, Thane or the Deputy Collector nominated by him shall file compliance affidavit in this Court on or before 30^th June 2014. Though the Petition is disposed of, the same shall be listed in the caption of “Directions” on 7^th July 2014 for reporting compliance.

¶29

(A.A. SAYED, J)

¶30

( A.S. OKA, J )

Prakash Tukaram Neel v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Tukaram Neel v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Dr. Vishnu S/O Shankarrao Ukande Vs the State of Maharashtra Department of Planning through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 3 Others

Talamba Project Affected Rehabilitation Social Sanstha, Mumbai, through President and Anr. Vs the Executive Engineer, the Talamba Major Irrigation Project and Ors.

Ketan Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Home Dept

Balbir Singh Chabbra Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Dept and Anr.

Datta Narayan Rane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Datta Narayan Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Parashram Sattappa Tavare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Environment and Ors.

Datta Narayan Rane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nivrutti Govind Chavan and Anr. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur

Arjun Laxman Kadam and Anr. Vs the Tehsildar, Patan and Ors.

Vasudeo Appa Lad and Ors. Vs the Collector and Land Acqusition Officer and Ors.

Rajratna J. Jamnik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janak Raj Gupta (Since Decd) through Lrs. Vs the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr.Vinay Prahaladrai Poddar Vs Mrs. Rachana Vinay Poddar