Dismissed

Gokuldas Girdhar Mhatre v. Grampanchayat Phunde, through Gramsevak / Sarpanch and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014WP/4448/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the Gram Panchayat's impugned order regarding a water connection and regularization of an unauthorized house. The court declined to intervene as the legality of construction was disputed and the petitioner failed to use statutory channels for regularization.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gokuldas Girdhar Mhatre Vs Grampanchayat Phunde… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

Deshmane

37.WP.4448-14.doc

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4448 OF 2014

¶6

[Gokuldas Girdhar Mhatre Vs. Grampanchayat Phunde & ors.]

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶8

Court’s or Judge’s Orders

¶9

Mr. K.N. Kandekar, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Rahul Thakur, for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the State.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 28^th JULY, 2014

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent. The submission for the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent is that the petitioner has carried out construction of house No.368 without obtaining a permission of the competent authority. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is relying upon a no-objection certificate dated 26^th September, 2003 issued by the first respondent – village panchayat.

¶14

We have perused the no-objection certificate dated 26^th September, 2003. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the first respondent–Gram Panchayat has no authority to grant any permission for construction of a house inasmuch as only the Collector of the District has an authority to grant such a permission.

1 / 2

Deshmane

37.WP.4448-14.doc

Thus, there is a serious dispute on the question whether the construction made by the petitioner is legal. Apart from a no objection certificate of the village panchayat, no other document is placed on record by the petitioner to show that house No.368 was constructed after obtaining a permission of the competent authority.

¶20

Hence, we decline to entertain this Petition filed at the instance of the petitioner.

¶21

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are many others who have carried out illegal constructions by making encroachments on the public road. We find from the petition that the petitioner has not made any representation to any authority pointing out the alleged illegal constructions made by others and calling upon the concerned authorities to take action of demolition / removal of said structures. It will be open for the petitioner to make representations to the concerned authorities as regards the alleged illegal constructions carried out by the villagers on the public road. If such representations are made, the concerned authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶22

We, therefore, reject the Petition. However, we make it clear that it will be open for the petitioner to apply for regularization of the house No.368. If the construction of house No.368 is regularized, it will be open for the petitioner to make a fresh application to the first respondent for granting water connection.

¶23

2 / 2

Gokuldas Girdhar Mhatre v. Grampanchayat Phunde, through Gramsevak / Sarpanch and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gokuldas Girdhar Mhatre v. Grampanchayat Phunde, through Gramsevak / Sarpanch and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Gajanan Damodar Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogiraj Constructions, through Partner, Manish Kulkarni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Shankarlal Ostwal and Ors. Vs the Malegaon Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Exide Industries Ltd. Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Food and Civil, Dept of Civul Supplies and Ors.

Rohidas Madhav alias Mahadeo Kunjir Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Rohidas Madhav alias Mahadeo Kunjir Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Ors.