Partly allowed

Shri Madhukar S/O Janardan Gondane v. Union of India, through National Highway Authority of India, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC15 Apr 2015WP/5131/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against a notice to remove encroachment. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to decide the appeal afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.09.2014 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal afresh.

Shri Madhukar S/O Janardan Gondane Vs Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 15.04.wp.5131.14.

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5131/2014

¶4

( Shri Madhukar s/o Janardhan Gondane vs. The Union of India Th: national highway Authority of India and 4 others )

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶6

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. Y.V.Nayyar, Adv. for petitioner Mr. M.A.Sable, Adv. for Res. No.3 Mr.Prakash Tiwari, Adv. for Res.No.4

¶8

Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for Respondent no.5

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 15^th April, 2015.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16.09.2014, rejecting an Appeal field by the petitioner, under Section 53(3)(A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

¶13

Shri Y.V.Nayyar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Additional Commissioner committed a serious error in rejecting the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order issued by the Gram Panchayat under Section 53 (2) of the Act of 1958, for want of jurisdiction. It is stated that against a notice/ order issued by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 53 of the Act asking the petitioner to remove the encroachment within a stipulated time, an Appeal could be preferred before the Commissioner, under Section 53 (3)(A) of the Act of 1958.

¶14

2 15.04.wp.5131.14.

¶15

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of Section 53 of the Act of 1958, it appears that the Additional Commissioner was not justified in dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner, on the ground that a Revision was not tenable against the order of the Gram Panchayat. On a reading of the provisions of Section 53 of the Act of 1958, it is clear that an Appeal could be filed by an aggrieved person who is directed by the Gram Panchayat to remove the alleged encroachment. It was necessary for the Additional Commissioner to have decided the Appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits.

¶16

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 16.9.2014 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the Appeal afresh, in accordance with law.

¶17

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGEJUDGE

¶19

sahare

Shri Madhukar S/O Janardan Gondane v. Union of India, through National Highway Authority of India, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Madhukar S/O Janardan Gondane v. Union of India, through National Highway Authority of India, Nagpur and Others

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

Mr. Arun S/O Baburao Amidwar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Midc, Nagpur and Another

Puranlal S/O Sukram Ukey Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Water Conservation Department, Mumbai and 4 Others

Ku. Harshali D/O Vasant Rane, through Natural Guardian Shri Vansant Budhaji Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mumbai and Another

Divakar S/O Panditrao Thaware Vs Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra Home Department, Bombay and Others

Parmanand S/O Bhaulal Upwanshi Sarpanch Vs Dayaramji Tukaram Agashe and 6 Others

Shri Dnyaneshwar S/O Budhuji Dighore Vs State of Maharashtra, Grm Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department, Mumbai and Others