Disposed

Ranjeetsingh S/O Gulabsingh Chungde v. Pramod S/O Bhaichand Raisoni, and 5 Others

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014PIL/41/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to prevent respondent from developing land for non-industrial use without due process. Respondent affirmed refusal to sell plots without authority permits, warranting dismissal of the public interest litigation.

What did the court decide?

The public interest litigation was disposed of with no order as to costs; the Rs. 10,000 deposit was remitted to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

Ranjeetsingh S/O Gulabsingh Chungde Vs Pramod S/O… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

Order

1709pil41.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 41/2014.

¶6

Ranjeetsingh Gulabsingh Chungde

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni and 5 others.

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,____________________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Shri M.G. Sarda, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.6.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.R BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

By this petition, which is registered as a

¶15

Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner who claims to be

¶16

a Social Activist and an Ex-Councilor of the Akola

¶17

Municipal Corporation, seeks directions to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 that permission should not be granted to the respondent no.1 to develop the land ad-

Order

1709pil41.14

measuring 66000 sq. mtrs. by sub-dividing the same or otherwise use the land except for industrial use, without following due process of law. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 to take action against the illegal development and sub-division of land.

¶22

According to the petitioner, 66000 sq. mtrs. of land was purchased by the respondent no.1 from National Textile Corporation on 13.03.2013. According to the petitioner without permission of the Authorities, the respondent no.1 has demarcated the plots on the said land and has prepared a private layout plan. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 has offered the plots for sale without securing permission from the concerned authorities, including the Municipal Corporation.

¶23

The respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit in reply. It is stated in the said affidavit in reply that the petition is not filed in public interest. It is stated that it was obligatory for the petitioner to disclose that Crime No. 325/1993 was registered against the petitioner for several offences under the Penal Code and the Arms Act.

Order

1709pil41.14

It is stated that the petitioner was prosecuted in a trial for offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323 and 506 of the Penal Code and was acquitted by the judgment dated 25.08.2011 by giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner. It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that the petitioner was the President of Labour Association of erstwhile Mohta Spinning and Weaving Mills, Akola and the property of the said mill had been auctioned by the National Textile Corporation and the same was purchased by the respondent no.1 for a valuable consideration.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 would not sell the plots to private parties without securing necessary permission from the competent Authorities. It is stated that since the respondent no.1 would not sell the plots, without obtaining necessary sanction/ clearance from the competent Authorities, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Shri Sarda, the learned counsel appearing on

Order

1709pil41.14

behalf of the petitioner states that since a statement is made on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 would not sell the plots without obtaining necessary permission/clearance from the competent Authorities, the grievance of the petitioner would not survive.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of, with no order as to costs.

¶35

The amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner should be, in the facts and circumstances of the case be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. Order accordingly.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Rgd.

Ranjeetsingh S/O Gulabsingh Chungde v. Pramod S/O Bhaichand Raisoni, and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeetsingh S/O Gulabsingh Chungde v. Pramod S/O Bhaichand Raisoni, and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annay Bhrashtachar Nivaran Janhit Samiti, Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India and Another

Mohanlal Motilal Bhandari Vs Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri. Ajit Sakharam Kandar and Anr. Vs the States of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Shri. Pramod Sahebrao Arsul Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Purushottam Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Ors.

Sevasankalp Jankalyan Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Muralidhar Gajbhiye Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. Mumbai and 4 Others

Shri Nitin S/O Govindrao Lunge Vs the Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Amravati Division, Amravati and 4 Others

Purushottam S/O Dadarao Deshmukh Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, through Its Registrar, Amravati and 3 Others

Shri Sarangdhar Namdeo Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 3 Others

Moreshwar S/O Sitaramji Raut Vs the Hon'Ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, and 5 Ors.

Karnadharsingh @Jaisingh S/O Vitthalsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary General Administration Department Mumbai and Others