Dismissed

Mr. Pravin Laxman Mhapralkar v. Mr. Hemendra P. Bosmiya and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2014PIL/27/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Public Interest Litigation challenging illegal construction on lands alleged to be reserved for a school and ESR was rejected. The Court held that the petition lacked foundation as no document showed the reservations in the sanctioned development plan under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The entry in 7/12 extract was insufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation rejected on the ground that it proceeded on no foundation due to absence of sanctioned reservation.

Mr. Pravin Laxman Mhapralkar Vs Mr. Hemendra P. Bosmiya and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-27.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.27 OF 2014

¶5

Mr. Pravin Laxman Mhapralkar. .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Hemendra P. Bosmiya and Others. .. Respondent

¶6

Shri Vaibhav V. Ugle for the Petitioner. Ms. Kainaz Irani i/by Zohair & Co for Respondent No.1. Shri Akshay Shinde i/by Shri Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2. Shri Atul G. Damle for Respondent No.3. Ms. Leena Patil i/by Shri M.S. Karnik for Respondent No.4. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.5A and 5B.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ DATED : 13TH JUNE 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner is that the lands more particularly described in Paragraph 4 of the Petition have been reserved for a school and/or ESR. It is contended that notwithstanding the said reservation, the first Respondent has been permitted to carry on illegal construction on the said lands. The specific case made out in the Petition as reflected from Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Petition is that the lands described in Paragraph 4 of the Petition are reserved for school and ESR. There is an affidavit filed by Shri Govind Rathod on behalf of Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation. In the affidavit, it is stated that the lands may have been reserved for school and ESR in the draft development plan. However,

ash

pil-27.14

no such reservations have been shown in the sanctioned development plan approved by the State Government.

¶14

The first Respondent has filed an affidavit. In Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, he has stated that the development plan has been sanctioned by the State Government on 9^th February 2007 and reservations for the school and/or ESR have been deleted.

¶15

It will be necessary to make a reference to the order dated 7^th May 2014 passed by this Court. A reference has been made to the stand taken by the third Respondent in the affidavit. Time was granted to the Petitioner to file a rejoinder dealing with Paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Shri Rathod in which there is a categorical assertion that in the sanctioned development plan, the said lands have not been reserved as alleged by the Petitioner.

¶16

Today the Petitioner has filed a rejoinder. The Petitioner has annexed a copy of the 7/12 extract of the lands bearing Survey No.2. He is relying upon the Mutation Entry No.5017 which, according to him, shows that the lands described in Paragraph 4 of the Petition have been numbered as Survey No.2. He is relying upon the entries made in the Other Rights Column of the 7/12 extract showing the reservation of the land for school, playground, etc. The Petitioner has

¶17

ash 3

¶18

pil-27.14

¶19

not produced any document to show that in the development plan sanctioned under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the lands described in Paragraph 4 of the Petition have been shown under reservation for school and/or ESR.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the reservations have been shown in the CIDCO plan. In the affidavit of Shri Rathod filed on behalf of the third Respondent, it is stated that the draft development plan was prepared by the CIDCO which was submitted to the State Government in which a proposal for reservations was there, but in the sanctioned development plan, such reservations have been deleted.

¶21

Unless it is shown that the lands in question have been reserved in the sanctioned development plan, relying upon the entries in Other Rights Column in 7/12 extract, no conclusion can be recorded that the lands have been reserved in the sanctioned development plan.

¶22

The entire Petition proceeds on the footing that the construction has been illegally permitted on the said lands to come up though the same have been reserved for school and/or ESR. The entire basis on which the Petition has been filed is found to be completely without any foundation.

ash

pil-27.14

Therefore, this is not a fit case which can be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. The PIL is accordingly rejected. We must make it clear that this order shall not be construed to mean that this Court has examined the legality and validity of the construction made by the first Respondent.

¶27

(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Mr. Pravin Laxman Mhapralkar v. Mr. Hemendra P. Bosmiya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pravin Laxman Mhapralkar v. Mr. Hemendra P. Bosmiya 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

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Shridhar Khandu Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sopanrao Pandhrinath Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra

Tatyaba L. Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dagadkhan Asanghatit Kamgar, Vikar Parishad, through President, Bastu Moti Rege Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Ketan Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Minister and Anr.

Smt. Suwarna Shankar Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home (Transport) Dept and Ors.

The Secretary, Group Gram Panchayat, Sai and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Ors.

Tps Infrastructure Limited and Anr. Vs Thane Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Mrs. Ashwini Sudhir Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Ravikant Patil Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Anr.

Mrs. Ashwini Sudhir Nalawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.