Dismissed

Nalin Choksey v. State of Maharastra and 4 Anr.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2015WP/50/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the alleged wrongful realignment of a development plan road affecting his plot. Respondents alleged no realignment occurred. The bench held the dispute was serious, relief could not be granted via writ jurisdiction, and the points were kept open.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs; the points raised were kept open. No declaration was granted.

Nalin Choksey Vs State of Maharastra and 4 Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.50.2014_12.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.50 OF 2014

Nalin Choksey

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr.Bhavesh Parmar i/b Devmani Shukla & V.P. Yadav for the Petitioner Mr.M.P. Jadhav, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1 Mr.J.G. Reddy for Resp. No.2 Ms.Vandana Mahadik for Resp. No.3 Mr.Tushar Dahibawkar for Resp. No.4

¶10

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶11

DATE: 24^th FEBRUARY, 2015

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the issuance of the communication, dated 29.9.2009 by the Executive Engineer (Development Plan), Ward H/E, to the Licensed Surveyor for demarcation of the site and realignment of the proposed Development Plan Road is wrongful and illegal.

¶14

According to the petitioner, in furtherance of the communication referred to hereinabove, there was a realignment of the proposed development plan road and the road would now pass through most of the area of the plot owned by the petitioner. It is stated that while making demarcation of the adjoining plot, the plot of land owned and occupied by the petitioner could not have been affected.

¶15

1 / 2

¶16

wp.50.2014_12.doc

¶17

The Assistant Engineer (Development Plan) has filed an affidavit in reply. It is sated by the learned Counsel for the Corporation on the basis of the affidavit in reply that there is no realignment as alleged by the petitioner and hence, there is no cause for filing the writ petition. It is stated that as per the office record, the realignment of 13.40 metre wide DP road is not done in the particular stretch, as stated on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that the case of the petitioner, that in view of the realignment more area from the plot of the petitioner is affected, is not correct.

¶18

The Respondent No.4 has also disputed the case canvassed by the petitioner. It is stated that the realignment does not affect the plot of the petitioner.

¶19

It appears, on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, that there is a serious dispute whether the plot of the petitioner is affected by the realignment. It is asserted by the petitioner that in view of the realignment, the plot of the petitioner is affected, whereas it is stated on behalf of the respondents that the realignment would not affect the plot of the petitioner.

¶20

The relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open.

¶21

(C.V. BHADANG, J.)

¶22

(VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶23

2 / 2

Nalin Choksey v. State of Maharastra and 4 Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalin Choksey v. State of Maharastra and 4 Anr.

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

Keshav Manjappa Poojari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader High Court (O.S.) Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Porthukaran Thomas Lazar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

M/S. Mama and Sons Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors. and Mr. Hasinuddin Ansari (Applicant)

Prof. Yashwant Bhagwan Bhide Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rekha Ramratan Tripati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bansu Keshav Hole Vs Mr. Vikas Deshmukh, Collector Pune and Ors.