Disposed

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2015WP/121/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding proposed road construction and potential eviction, the Court declined to adjudicate on the legality of the petitioners' possession, directing them to seek alternate remedies. The application was finally disposed of, but status quo was maintained for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of status quo for a period of four weeks.

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

920)WP121.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 121 OF 2014

¶6

Anjana Baban Pale & Ors.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. M.A. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State Mr. K. Y. Mandlik, Advocate for R. No. 3.

¶12

CORAM:-NARESH H. PATIL & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : -20/03/2015

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶16

petitioners are rehabilitated on the subject plot and they are paying property taxes and other taxes to the local authorities. Their possession is legal. It is submitted that they have serious apprehension that the respondents would evict them from their residential houses by demolishing their structures.

¶17

3 Respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit-in-reply through

1/3

920)WP121.14

Mr. Ramakant Dilip Dake, the Chief Officer of Sangola Municipal Council, Sangola. The deponent contends that a narrow gauge railway passes through Sangola City is converted into broad gauge with proposed development road is parallel to the railway broad gauge on western side. The width of the road is 12 meters. The private owners of the land have no objection for acquisition. The deponent further contends in para 5 that the petitioners are rank trespassers and are not displaced persons as alleged or otherwise. The deponent denied that the petitioners are staying since last twenty years. There was no entry made in the 7/12 extract column as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners' occupation is unauthorized and illegal. The deponent further contends that the Government has allotted land and provided funds to construct the road. So far an amount of Rs.25 lacs has been sanctioned for construction of road. It is further contention of the deponent that the road under construction being necessity and in the interest of public has been sanctioned in development plan of 1991.

¶22

4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made by the local body is disputed. The petitioners'

2/3

920)WP121.14

possession is legal. They are allotted this land under a scheme and they are continued to remain in possession of the said property.

¶27

5 We have perused the record placed before us. The issue as to whether the petitioners' possession is lawful or not cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The respondents disputed the petitioners' possession on the subject property to be legal. The petitioners may resort to alternate remedy as provided in law. We do not express any opinion on the issue concerned.

¶28

6 The petition stands disposed of.

¶29

7 Status quo as on today shall be continued for a period

¶30

of four weeks.

¶31

md.saleem

¶32

3/3

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Dept and Ors.

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

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar Vs Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Govt. and Ors. Vs Surendra Vaman Dhawale and Ors.

M/S Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari Vs the Union of India, through Miistry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi and Ors.

Mr. Ramdas Babanrao Pavale Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Agriculture and Marketing Dept and Ors.