Dismissed

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2016PIL/56/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court accepted undertaking from respondents to apply for regularization under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Regularization application to be filed within one month; demolition stayed pending disposal. Demolition directed if failure to apply.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking accepted. Regularization application to be filed within one month. Demolition stayed pending order. District Collector to investigate petitioner's structure and initiate demolition if ille

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/4

¶2

pil-56-10.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.56 OF 2010

¶5

Jagdish Vasant Patil ...Petitioner v/s.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ashok M.Sarogi for the Petitioner. Mr.Manish Pabale, AGP for the State-Respondent No.1. Mr.S.A.Sawant for the Respondents Nos.2,3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4 OCTOBER 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Affidavit tendered by the second, third and fourth Respondents, affirmed today, is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. In view of what is stated in the Affidavit, it is crystal clear that the construction of the alleged Welfare Centre was made by the said Respondents without obtaining permission of the Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. We accept the statements in the Affidavit as undertakings of the second, third and fourth Respondents.

¶11

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Application for regularization cannot be granted, unless the permission of the Central Government is obtained. He invited our attention to the letter dated 12 July 2006 addressed by the Additional Collector to the second, third and fourth Respondents.

1/4

Uday.P.Kambli

2/4

pil-56-10.doc

It is needless to add that the Authority which deals with the

¶17

Application for regularization which may be made by the second to forth respondents will have to take into consideration the contents of the said letter dated 12 July 2006.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the second, third and fourth Respondents states that an Application for regularization will be made by them to the concerned Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 within a period of four weeks from today. We accept the said statement.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the second, third and fourth Respondents submits that there are large number of other illegal structures including the structure erected by the Petitioner.

¶20

In view of the undertaking of the second, third and fourth Respondents and in view of their acceptance of the fact that the construction of the Welfare Centre has been carried out without obtaining permission of the Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 we need not keep the present Petition pending and we dispose of the same.

¶21

If an Application for regularization is made by the second, third and

2/4

Uday.P.Kambli

3/4

pil-56-10.doc

fourth Respondents to the appropriate Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 within a period of one month from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of filing of the said Application. The order on the regularization Application be communicated to the second, third and fourth Respondents or their Architect. If the Application for regularization is made within one month, till the date of communication of the order passed on the said Application, the action of demolition of the structure of the second, third and fourth Respondents shall not be taken. If the said order be adverse to the said Respondents, the action of demolition shall not be taken for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the adverse order to one of the second to fourth respondents or their Architect, whichever is earlier.

¶27

On the failure of the second, third and fourth Respondents to make an Application for regularization as aforesaid, on expiry of period of one month from today, the District Collector shall take action of demolition of the structure of the second, third and fourth Respondents. We direct the District Collector, Palghar to appoint appropriate officer to look into the allegations whether any structure erected by the Petitioner is illegal. Needless to add that if any structure of the Petitioner is found to be illegal,

3/4

Uday.P.Kambli

4/4

pil-56-10.doc

an action for demolition shall be initiated in accordance with law.

¶33

All contentions of parties on merits as the regularization application

¶34

are kept open.

¶35

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

¶36

4/4

¶37

Uday.P.Kambli

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugal Bhiku Patel and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Vijay Krishna Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Society for Fast Justice and Anr. Vs the State F Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Masood Ansari Vs Stae of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Sachin Suresh Kadam Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Adivasi Punrvasn Andolan and Gavkari Samnya Sammitee, through Mr. Kishor Tatyarao Divekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Chandrashekhar Shyamrao Tembhurne Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Thr Secretary Cooperative and Textile Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Oth

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Surjit Nandikishor Gupta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Praval Deepak Karekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad S/O. Satyanarayan Joshi Alias Sharad Kumar Satish Dokwal Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Namdeo Belawale Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Anr.

Jennifer George Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Annasaheb Baban Kadam and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.