Disposed

Mr. Anil Narsing Kale v. Sub-Divisional Engineer and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2016WP/207/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging issuance of final notices threatening demolition. Court directed Collector Pune to intimate authorities if appeals are pending and imposed status quo for two weeks if impugned order is adverse.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Collector directed to intimate authorities if appeals pending; status quo for two weeks if Collector's order is adverse; cases disposed of.

Mr. Anil Narsing Kale Vs Sub-Divisional Engineer and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

904 wp 205.16 to 212.16 group as.doc

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.205 OF 2016

¶5

Mr. Hemant Dattatray Raut V/s.	...	Petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors.	...	Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.206	OF	2016
Mr. Shekhar alias Bharat Giridhar Nikude V/s.	...	Petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors.	...	Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.207	OF	2016
Mr. Anil Narsing Kale V/s.	...	Petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors.	...	Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.208	OF	2016
Mr. Santosh Pandurang Upadhye V/s.	...	Petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors.	...	Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.209	OF	2016
Mr. Dilip Vishnupant Dixit V/s.	...	Petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer,
Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors.	...	Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

2/4 904 wp 205.16 to 212.16 group as.doc

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.210 OF 2016

¶9

Mr. Vishal MadhukarBhosale ... Petitioner V/s. Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.211 OF 2016 Mr. Mahesh Shivajirao Kale & Anr. ... Petitioner V/s. Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub Division No.1 & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.212 OF 2016 Mr. Somnath alias Rajushet Vaskar & Ors. ... Petitioner V/s. Sub Divisional Engineer PWD &Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Y.P. Narvekar for the Petitioners. Mr. Tapan Thatte for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the Respondents/State.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ . 7^th January, 2016 .

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The Petitioners' grievance is that against a final notice dated 4 January 2016 an Appeal was preferred by the Petitioners, before the Collector of Pune under section 24 of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955.

¶13

2 Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that in view of provisions of section 24 of the said Act the Highway Authorities

¶14

3/4 904 wp 205.16 to 212.16 group as.doc

¶15

shall desist from taking further action in the above matters till the order is communicated by the Collector of Pune to the Petitioners. The Petitioners grievance is that the Highway Authorities contrary to the provisions of section 24 of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955 issued final notice (Exhibit F) on 4 January 2016 addressed to the Petitioners indicating that the subject property is going to be demolished.

¶16

3 Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent/State has taken instructions from the Collector, Pune during the course of the day. On instructions, learned AGP submits that he does not dispute the legal position as contained in the provisions of section 24 of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955. Learned AGP assures on behalf of the Highway Authorities that in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955 necessary steps will be taken.

¶17

4 In view of above discussion, we direct the Respondent Collector, Pune to take appropriate steps to intimate the concerned Authorities in case the Appeals filed by the Petitioners are still kept pending. All issues on merits are kept open. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the subject issue or the contentions raised in the Appeals.

¶18

5 In case, the order passed by the Respondent Collector, Pune is adverse to the Petitioners then we direct that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the subject structures for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the Petitioners.

¶19

6 Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶20

4/4 904 wp 205.16 to 212.16 group as.doc

¶21

7 No order as to costs.

¶22

8 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶23

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶24

katkam

Mr. Anil Narsing Kale v. Sub-Divisional Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anil Narsing Kale v. Sub-Divisional Engineer 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

The Chairman, Sree Narayana Mandira Samiti and Anr. Vs the University of Mumbai and Ors.

Hadap Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vs Vyayam Mandal Satara and Ors.

Mrs. Uma Vijaysingh Rajput Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hadap Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vs Vyayam Mandal Satara and Ors.