Disposed

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Apr 2014PIL/72/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions to remove encroachments on a Development Plan road at Jalna. The Court directed the Municipal Council and State authorities to clear the area and complete construction by end of 2014.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for removal of encroachments on the Development Plan road at Jalna and completion of construction work by 2014.

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 72 OF 2013

¶5

Babanrao s/o Hariharrao Deshmukh

& others

.. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State. Mr. Amit Deshpande, advocate for respondent no. 6.

¶11

=====

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶13

A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 7th APRIL, 2014.

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Learned counsel Mr. S. S. Tope is permitted to withdraw his

¶17

appearance. Learned counsel Mr. S. V. Deshmukh causes his appearance

¶18

on behalf of petitioners.

¶19

Petitioners are seeking directions to respondents – authorities to

¶20

remove encroachment made over Development Plan road at Jalna

¶21

¶22

connecting Mukteshwar Gate to old Jalna-Beed road. In pursuance to notice issued by this Court, respondent no. 6 has caused appearance and it is stated in paragraph no. 2 of the affidavit in reply that the proposed development plan road is 546 meters in length and width of the said road is 15 meters. Out of the total length, road is constructed over an area to the extent of 350 meters and construction of part of the road admeasuring 196 meters is yet to be completed. It is the contention of respondent that remaining area of the development plan road is partly occupied by encroachers, the State Government as well as Wakf Board. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that no part of the area proposed to be utilised for development plan road belongs to the Wakf Board and the State Government and the issue has already been adjudicated by the Collector. It would be the responsibility of the Municipal Council to take appropriate steps for taking possession of the area proposed to be utilised for construction of development plan road by following prescribed procedure. Respondent – Municipal Council is legally bound to take appropriate steps

¶23

in accordance with law and remove encroachment or unauthorised possession of third party on the area proposed to be utilised for construction of development plan road. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 7 shall co-operate the Municipal Council in the drive for removal of encroachments over an area required for development plan road. The State authorities

¶24

¶25

shall handover the area possessed by the State Government, if any, required for construction of proposed development plan road to the Municipal Council. Respondents shall extend fullest co-operation to the Municipal Council in removal of encroachment over area required for proposed development plan road. Necessary steps shall be taken and balance of work shall be completed by Municipal Council, Jalna, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of the year 2014. In view of

¶26

directions issued as above, Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of.

¶27

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

dyb

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

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.

Janardhan Shantaram Kekan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Dattatraya Pandurang Pawar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Megha Chandrakant Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Ashokrao Ghatole and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Revati Ramesh Joshi and Ors.

M/S. Kalyan Infratech Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Arya Cotton Co. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and and Ors.