This single-paragraph disposal order notes that petitioners are encroachers. It observes the encroachment was removed by the second respondent. The writ petition stands disposed of with admissible options open.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12616 OF 2016
(Nanda Nana Kamble and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another)
Mr. Angad L. Kanade, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2
CORAM :R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 22nd December, 2016
PER COURT:
Heard.
2.The petitioners are admittedly encroachers over
the property and do not have any legal right to remain
in occupation of the premises.
3.The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No. 2, on instructions, states that the encroachment
raised by the petitioners has already been removed in
accordance with the procedure laid down in law. In
that view of the matter, nothing survives in this
petition. Keeping the option of the petitioners open to
avail of the remedies available in law, if any, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
npj/wp12616-2016
Nanda Nana Kamble and others
The State of Maharashtra
Another
R.M. BORDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court