Disposed

Pratap Gopaldas Talreja and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2014WP/1697/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged road widening plans affecting petitioner structures. The High Court, noting months of delay, directed the Municipal Corporation to reconsider the notice in light of a proposed minor modification under the MRTP Act. The Court fixed a date for appearance and stipulated timelines for government consideration of the modification proposal and any subsequent action.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to Municipal Corporation to reconsider reply and apply MRTP modification; appearance fixed for 5th January 2015.

Pratap Gopaldas Talreja and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

914 sr. no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1697 OF 2010

¶5

PRATAP GOPALDAS TALREJA AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Choudhari with Mr. R.J. Katariya &

¶7

Mr. P.A. Bharat. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3 & 4.

¶8

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER, 2014.

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1] Heard Shri Choudhari with Mr. Rajesh Katariya for petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Advocate Patil for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is stated to be not available.

¶11

2] Other respondents are private parties against whom, there are some allegations of malafides. Basic issue is about widening of a public road proceeding from Zilla Parishad to Railway Station within the limits of Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. Structure of petitioner is located on that road and if road is widened, it is affected and, therefore, is required to be removed. With that apprehension, present petition has been filed.

¶12

3] We find that petitioner was served with a notice on 29.1.2009 by Municipal Corporation and petitioners have replied to it immediately. Thus, on that show cause notice, no decision appears to have been taken till date. These documents are placed on record by petitioners along with affidavit on 20.5.2008.

¶13

{2}

¶14

914 sr. no..odt

¶15

4] Last document with said affidavit is a resolution of the General Body with number 282, dated 13.7.2009. Said resolution has looked into the litigation before this Court and found it proper to provide an alternate road from Nehru Putla to Station Road. The resolution observes, that a parallel road can be proposed and developed. It is further observed that said road needs to be kept 24 meters wide and land for it can be procured from the complex of Khandesh Mill. The General Body, therefore, recommended a minor modification under Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

¶16

5] Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the said proposal for minor modification is still pending with the State Government. In this situation, question is, whether the structures which have already come up on the earlier road i.e. from Zilla Parishad to Station Road, should be disturbed, or then, a minor modification under Section 37, in terms of the Resolution of the General Body dated 13.7.2009 should be considered. According to Shri Choudhari, if the proposal is accepted and minor modification is granted, structures of the petitioners need not be touched.

¶17

6] Though matter is pending with this court since 2010, and notice for final disposal was issued on 12.6.2012, State Government, or the Municipal Corporation have not filed any reply. Thus, an issue of public importance is engaging attention of this court for more than two years. In this situation, we direct respondent Municipal Corporation to look into the reply submitted by petitioners on 23.2.2009, in response to the show cause notice and take suitable decision upon it. The reply should be looked into in the background of minor modification as sought in the resolution dated 13.7.2009. If necessary, an opportunity of hearing shall also be extended to petitioners and all concerned.

¶18

7] This action shall be completed within a period of 4 months from today. We direct the petitioners to appear before the Municipal Commissioner – respondent No.3, on 5.1.2015, for said purpose. Period of 4

¶19

914 sr. no..odt

¶20

{3}

¶21

months shall commence from said date. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 shall also consider the resolution passed by the General Body vide resolution No. 282 dated 13.7.2009 under Section 37 of the MRTP Act if such proposal is received by it. It is open for the Municipal Corporation to forward the same to respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today. If any such proposal is received by State Government, the State Government shall consider the same in accordance with law, within next four months.

¶22

8] If after completion of this process, any adverse action is to be taken against petitioners, petitioners shall be given 15 day's advance notice thereof.

¶23

9] With these directions, we dispose of the writ petition. No costs.

¶24

[A.M. BADAR] JUDGE

¶25

[B.P. DHARMADHIKARI]

¶26

JUDGE.

¶27

grt/-

Pratap Gopaldas Talreja and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Gopaldas Talreja and Ors. 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

Bharatsing Gulabsingh Lakhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nath Forge Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sonkamble Narayan Dhondiba and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pralhad Bapurao Gade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Raghunath Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.