Disposed

Shashikant Laxman Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2015WP/5448/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-demolition of illegal structures on a plot reserved for a garden. Accepting an affidavit that no illegal structures currently exist, the court directed the respondent to demolish any future illegal structures if pointed out by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to make representation if any illegal structures exist on plot No.14 for demolition.

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned AGP for the State. The case made out in this petition is that, the plot more particularly described in the prayers (a) and (b) of the petition, being plot No.14 is reserved for garden. The grievance in the petition is that action of demolition of illegal constructions made on plot No.14 is not being taken.

2Shri S.S.Dhupe, the Chief Officer of the second respondent Municipal Council filed an affidavit dated 18th November 2013. In clause (b) of paragraph 5, it is reiterated that plot no.14 is reserved for garden. In clause (k) of paragraph 5 of the affidavit, following statements have been made:

“(k) for the reasons aforesaid, prayer clauses “a” and “b” may not be granted in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has already demolished several structures in exercise of POWER UNDER MRTP ACT r/w DCR 1991. I say that as regards to prayer `C' Respondent No.2 submits that as on today there is no illegal construction being carried out on the subject plot, therefore question of preventing any illegal construction does not arise.”

3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from a bare statement on oath, no document in support has been filed. The statement on oath made by the Chief Officer is that several illegal structures have been demolished and as there is no illegal construction being carried out on the subject plot, the question of preventing illegal construction does not arise. We accept the statements made in the aforesaid clause (k) of paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Shri S.S.Dhupe. If the petitioner finds that still there are any illegal structures on the plot No.14, it will be open for him to make a representation to the Chief Officer of the second respondent by pointing out the existence of illegal structures. If such representation is made, considering the stand taken in the affidavit that the plot is reserved for garden, the second respondent shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law for demolition of the

Shashikant Laxman Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Laxman Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shri. Areppuzhekara Chandi Joseph Vs Dr. Shyam Gholap and Anr.

Jaypal Kallappa Borgave Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department and Ors. Vs Litigants Association, Maharashtra (Pakshakar Sangh)

The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs the High Court of Mumbai through Registrar General

Maruti Sakharam Waghre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.