Allowed

Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. v. Grampanchayat Umbraj and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Nov 2014PIL/230/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Grampanchayat to implement an earlier order regarding unauthorized construction within four months, while granting a six-week stay to allow the opposing party to challenge the underlying 2014 State Government order, without adjudicating the merits of that challenge.

What did the court decide?

Directive to implement within four months; six-week stay on implementation to allow filing of appropriate challenge proceedings; directions regarding potential non-compliance.

Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-230.09

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.230 OF 2009

¶5

Shri Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Grampanchayat, Umbraj & Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Ravindra S. Pachundkar i/by Shri Dilip Bodake for the Petitioners. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri Satish Upadhyay i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co for Respondent No.4. Shri Rahul S. Kate for Respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 12TH NOVEMBER 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners,

¶10

learned counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent, learned counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent and the learned AGP for the second and third Respondents.

¶11

A notice issued to the first Respondent has been duly served. The basic grievance in this Petition is as regards the failure of the concerned Respondents to implement the order dated 16^th June 2008 which was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. We have perused the order dated 16^th June 2008. The said order holds that the construction carried out by the fifth Respondent on the land bearing Survey No.165/21B and CTS No.1072 (Property No.578) of village

ash

pil-230.09

Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara, is unauthorized and, therefore, a direction was issued to the first Respondent Village Panchayat to take action in accordance with Subsection (7) of Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act”). On 23^rd October 2008, the District Collector, Satara, corrected the typographical error in the said order by providing that instead of Subsection (7) of Section 52 of the said Act, it shall be read as Subsection (5) of Section 52 of the said Act. The said order of the Collector was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in terms of the order dated 10^th December 2008. The fifth Respondent challenged the said order by filing a Revision Application before the State Government. By an order dated 14^th August 2014, the order dated 10^th December 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner was set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, a direction was issued in Clause (3) of the said order dated 14^th August 2014 to implement the order dated 16^th June 2008 passed by the Collector in the light of the provisions of the said Act. As of today, the said order is operative.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent states that the fifth Respondent proposes to challenge the said order.

¶17

Considering the prayers in the Petition, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

ash

pil-230.09

ORDER :

(a) We direct the first Respondent Village Panchayat, Umbraj, to implement the order dated 16^th June 2008 (as modified on 23^rd October 2008) in terms of the directions contained in Clause (3) of the order dated 14^th August 2014 passed by the State Government in Revision Application preferred by the fifth Respondent;

¶23

(b) Implementation of the aforesaid directions shall be made within a period of four months from today;

¶24

(c) We make it clear that this order will not preclude the fifth Respondent from filing appropriate proceedings for challenging the order dated 14^th August 2014. To enable the fifth Respondent to take out appropriate proceedings for challenging the said order, we direct that the direction issued in terms of Clause (a) above shall not be implemented for a period of six weeks from today;

ash

pil-230.09

(d) In the event of non compliance by the first Respondent of its statutory obligations, it will be always open for the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law;

¶29

(e) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶30

(A.S.GADKARI, J)

Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. v. Grampanchayat Umbraj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakaso Sadashiv Mahamuni and Anr. v. Grampanchayat Umbraj 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

Ashokrao Nathrao Dahiphale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Kadu Parkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde and Ors. . Vs State of Mah. and Anr. .

Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde and Ors. . Vs State of Mah. and Anr. .

Ankush Rangnath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Lionel Samson Ballantyne and Ors. Vs the Secretary, Bombay Education Society, Christ Church School and Ors.

Cinema Barrack Road Welfare Group and Ors. Vs Municipal Corp. of Gr.Mumbai and Ors.

Dushyant @ Raj Mahadeorao Kalyankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Pradeep Nanaso Patil Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Muslim Education Committee, through Trustees Vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli and Anr.

Shri. Pradeep Nanaso Patil Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Chetan Gulabrao Saronobat Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Chetan Gulabrao Saronobat Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Chetan Gulabrao Saronobat Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.