Dismissed

Ajit S/O Mukundrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Urban Development Mantralaya Mumbai and 3 Others

Bombay HC5 Sept 2014WP/1833/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to remove encroachment on Amravati-Barhanpur Interstate Highway. Court dismissed writ petition as encroachment did not fall within highway limits, relied resolution was inapplicable, necessary parties were not joined, and no prima facie encroachment was evident from photographs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ajit S/O Mukundrao Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp1833.1 4

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1833 OF 2014

¶5

Ajit S/o Mukundrao Deshmukh

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.M.P.Lala, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.M.K.Pathan, AGP for the respondent No.1. Mr.M.Lakhey, counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 05.09.2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to perform their duties by removing the encroachment on the Amravati-Barhanpur Interstate Highway abutting the property of the petitioner.

¶14

According to the petitioner, certain distance is required to be maintained between the houses, shops and the roads by the Public Works Department, but the said distance is not maintained by the shop owners, whose shops are adjacent to the property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it would be for the respondents-Authority to perform their duties and remove the encroachment.

¶15

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition as also the photographs, that are tendered in the Court today for our perusal, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be granted. It is stated on behalf of the respondent No.2-Municipal Council that the alleged encroachment near the property of the

¶16

2/2

¶17

wp1833.1 4

¶18

petitioner does not fall within the territory of State Highway and National Highway and the resolution dated 09/03/2001 on which the petitioner has placed reliance cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent No.4 by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the alleged construction does not fall within the central line and building line of State Highway in terms of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955. So also, according to the respondent No.4, the petitioner has not joined the alleged encroachers as party respondents, though the petitioner is seeking the removal of the encroachment by them.

¶19

It appears on a reading of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 4 that the alleged construction does not fall within the central line and building line of State Highway and the resolution on which the petitioner has placed reliance cannot be made applicable. So also, the petitioner has not joined the necessary parties to the writ petition. Without joining the adjacent shop owners, the petitioner is seeking the demolition of their shops and removal of the encroachment. It is conspicuous to note that the petitioner has mentioned the name of one of the alleged encroachers in the writ petition, but the petitioner has not joined the said person as a party to this petition. We also do not prima facie find on a perusal of the photographs that there is any encroachment on the road by the shop owners.

¶20

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

KHUNTE

Ajit S/O Mukundrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Urban Development Mantralaya Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit S/O Mukundrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Urban Development Mantralaya Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shadab Education Society, through Its Secretary, Deepak Marotrao Nagose and Another Vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj University, through Its Deputy Registrar, Nagpur and 2 Others

Kazi Akiloddin Sujuddin Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Akola and 3 Others

M/S. Narmada Traders, through Its Proprietor Shri Prashant S/O Shivshankar Singanjude Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, through Its Secretary and Anothers

Prakash S/O Murari Tiple Vs the State of Maharashtra, Throguh Its Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and 3 Others

Diwakar Tanu Purke and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Zilla Parishad Works, Nagpur and 1

Mah.Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Samiti and Another Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Its Secy.and 2 Others