Dismissed

Khidrapur Bachav Sangharsh Samiti, through Villagers v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Sept 2015WP/6456/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay declined to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of reconstruction restrictions under the Ancient Monuments Act. The court held that the petitioner failed to make any attempt to submit a proposal and disposed of the petition with contentions kept open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Khidrapur Bachav Sangharsh Samiti, through Villagers Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp6456-13

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6456 OF 2013

¶6

Khidrapur Bachav Sangarsh Samiti V/s.

¶7

The Union of India and Ors.

¶8

..Petitioner.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Manoj Shirsat i/b. Mr.Nitin B. Patil for the petitioner. Mr.Y.S. Bhate with Mr.Upendra Lokegaonkar and Ms.Rutuja Ambekar i/b. Mr.Y.R. Mishra for respondent No.1. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The substantive prayers (1) and (2) read thus:-

¶15

'(1) Be please to declare that sec. 20(A), to the extent of restriction on reconstruction in prohibited area, sec. 20 (C), and Sec 30(A) of the Act are unconstitutional; or read them down to say that they will not be applicable to the reconstruction of residential premises and shops / self employment establishments situated independently or with residential homes which are sole livelihood of the owner / occupant, without the prohibited area;

¶16

1/4

¶17

wp6456-13

¶18

(2) Be please to issue writ of mandamus or any writ of such nature directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to accept and consider the applications of petitioner's for permission for reconstruction in prohibited area. '

¶19

We have carefully perused the petition. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the petitioner or any of them have made any attempt to submit any proposal for reconstruction. Paragraph 22 of the petition is very vague. It is merely stated that “the respondents refuse to entertain proposal for reconstruction by the petitioners”. It is not the case of the petitioners that on the particular date, they made an attempt to file proposal with a particular authority and that the particular authority refused to entertain the proposal.

¶20

Thus, even without making an attempt to file a proposal, the petitioners have invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that Sections 20(A), 20(B) and 30(A) of The Ancient Monuments Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short 'the said Act') are unconstitutional.

¶21

Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it will be open for the petitioners to submit a proposal to the concerned authority

¶22

2/4

¶23

wp6456-13

¶24

under the said Act. It is obvious that if the proposals / applications are submitted by the petitioners, the concerned competent authority shall accept the same and deal with it in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of. All contentions including the contentions on the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the said Act are kept open.

¶26

If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the competent authority, they can always raise the issues which are raised in the petition while filing appropriate proceedings.

¶27

(V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) ( A.S.OKA. J.)

¶28

3/4

¶29

wp6456-13

¶30

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶31

Certified that this Judgment / Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment / Order.

¶32

4/4

Khidrapur Bachav Sangharsh Samiti, through Villagers v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Khidrapur Bachav Sangharsh Samiti, through Villagers v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mewalal Sahebdin Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Parvatabai Tukaram Shivekar Vs Mr. Vikas Deshmukh, Pune Collector and Ors.

Vijay Swatvadas Motwani and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of the City Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.

M/S Bosch Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 1 Anr.

Jagdish Moreshwar Patil and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre, Uran and Anr.

Ramchandra Narayan More Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs, Suryakant Ramchandra More Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Ors.