Disposed

Ramchandra Narayan Thakur and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2016WP/1042/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking direction not to approve a building plan and to compel plantation. The court found that the respondents had complied with a previous order by planting trees, and disposed of the petition as satisfied.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as the respondents had complied with the court’s earlier order.

Ramchandra Narayan Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

(WP 1042 of 2013)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 1042 OF 2013

¶5

Ramchandra Narayan Thakur and Ors. Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Petitioners

...Respondents

None for the Petitioners

¶11

Mr. V. B. Thadani, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.5 Mr. Neveille Mukerji i/b. Ueritas Legal for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 ******

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JULY 18, 2016

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondent No.5 not to approve building plan of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the land Survey No. 208, situated at Village Ovala Taluka and Dist. Thane. The Petitioners are also seeking a direction, directing Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to carry out plantation on the 34 guntas in Survey No. 208, Ovala Village.

¶16

Respondent No.5 has filed his affidavit in reply dated

¶17

2/3

¶18

(WP 1042 of 2013)

¶19

19.11.2013. In the reply, he has stated that the show cause notice was issued to the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 regarding alleged illegal cutting of trees in respect of the said area. It has further stated that the reply was given by the Respondents. However, it has further stated that Respondent No.5 was not satisfied with the reply and issued a fresh notice on 24.8.2012 calling upon Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as to why action under section 21 (1) of the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 should not be taken against them. He further stated that non-cognizable offence was also registered in Kasar Wadawali Police Station, Thane. The respondents have made a payment of Rs.10,95,000/- and have planted 365 trees.

¶20

We had also asked the Assistant Conservator of Forest to inspect the site and to file a further reply. Accordingly, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has filed a reply dated 7^th November, 2014. He has stated that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 1.9.2014, he has inspected the land in question and has carried out the survey. He has stated in his affidavit in reply that he found 365 trees have been planted by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. He has further stated that these trees have survived and plantation of trees meets the

¶21

3/3

¶22

(WP 1042 of 2013)

¶23

requirement of statute.

¶24

In view of the reply filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Thane, and the Respondent No.5, we are satisfied that there is due compliance of the order passed by this Court on 1.9.2014, by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. None appears on behalf of the Petitioners today. It appears that the Petitioners have also satisfied with the action taken by the Respondents. Hence, writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

M.S. SONAK, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

Ramchandra Narayan Thakur and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Narayan Thakur and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Property Redevelopers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited Vs Union of India and Anr.

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary to Govt. and Ors. Vs Shri. Ashok Vishwanath Relekar

Shri. Gurunath Yashwant Patkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Mallappa Satappa Aatawadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.