Disposed

Nirmala Mukund Hiwrale v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2016WP/2158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjourned a series of writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued for alleged land encroachment. The court held that as mere notices invite a reply and no coercive steps were taken, the petitions were not maintainable at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file reply; coercive action stayed pending response to notice; case disposed.

Nirmala Mukund Hiwrale Vs State of Maharashtra and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 wp 2560.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2560 OF 2015

¶4

Nanasaheb Deoram Sadashiv Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2561	OF 2015
Raosaheb Deoram Sadashiv Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2562	OF 2015
Dilip Deoram Sadashiv .. Versus	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2563	OF 2015
Narmadabai Parshuram Satdive Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2564	OF 2015
Meena Ashok Ugale Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents

¶5

2 wp 2560.15

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2565 OF 2015

¶7

Kiran Jagannath Salvi Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2566 OF	2015
Manda Raju More Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2567 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Mangal Pradip Sable Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2568 OF	2015
Rangubai Sampat Sable Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Mahendra Jagannath Salvi Versus The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Petitioner .. Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

3 wp 2560.15

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 2570 OF	2015
Maya Murlidhar More Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2571 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Bebi Eknath More Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2572 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Rekha Bhagwan More Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2573 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Changdev Mahadu Hiwrale Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2574 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Banobi Munir Shaikh Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2575 OF	.. Respondents 2015

¶11

4 Manda Subhash Gaikwad Versus The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2576 OF	wp 2560.15 .. Petitioner .. Respondents 2015
Wacchalabai Waman Salve Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2577 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Tara Uttam Hiwrale Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2578 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Mahmmad Vajir Shaikh Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2579 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Alka Bharat Kedare Versus The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2580 OF	.. Petitioner .. Respondents 2015
Gangubai Damodar Salvi Versus	.. Petitioner

¶12

5 The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2581 OF	wp 2560.15 .. Respondents 2015
Sadhana Ashok Hiwrale Versus The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2582 OF	.. Petitioner .. Respondents 2015
Janabai Kashinath Jadhav Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2583 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Ranjana Arjun Sonawane Versus The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2584 OF	.. Petitioner .. Respondents 2015
Jarina Mahebub Shaikh Versus	.. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF	.. Respondents 2015
Shobha Ramesh Bankar Versus The State of Maharashtra and others	.. Petitioner .. Respondents

¶13

6 wp 2560.15

¶14

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2154 OF 2015

¶15

Shobha Walmik More .. Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2015
Aashok Bhaskar Sadashiv .. Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2195 OF 2015
Bhausaheb Deorao Sadashiv .. Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2158 OF 2015
Nirmala Mukund Hiwrale .. Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the Petitioner in all matters. Ms. S. S. Raut, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in all matters.
Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in all matters.

¶16

7 wp 2560.15

¶17

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶18

DATE : 11TH JULY, 2016.

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

. Mr. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are not the encroachers'. Notices have been issued to petitioners to remove their houses on the ground that same is an encroachment, which is illegal. In majority of cases the petitioners or their parents were the employees of the respondents and were legitimately occupying the said premises. According to the learned counsel, the impugned notices are illegal and bad in law.

¶21

Mr. Barde, the learned counsel for the

¶22

respondent/corporation submits that, the impugned notices are show cause notices. The petitioners have not filed any reply to the said notices.

¶23

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, the writ petitions as against mere show cause notices are not tenable and relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bellary Steels and Alloy Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Assessments) and others reported in (2009) 17 SCC 547 .

¶24

8 wp 2560.15

¶25

It appears that, the impugned notices are not the orders, but are merely show cause notices. The petitioners have every opportunity to file reply to the said show cause notices and put forth their stand and the respondent/Corporation has not taken steps against the petitioners since the date of show cause notice. In view of that, we pass following order.

¶26

The petitioners may file their reply to the show cause notices impugned in the present writ petitions. The respondents shall consider the reply filed by petitioners and may after considering the reply pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to petitioners.

¶27

In case orders passed by respondent/corporation are adverse to petitioners, the petitioners have liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum and in appropriate proceedings. Needless to state till the decision is taken by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities would not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶28

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶29

bsb/July 16

Nirmala Mukund Hiwrale v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Mukund Hiwrale v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babasaheb Asaram Fulare Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Ambedkar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Osmanabad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Vitthal Bhagwat and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaobha Ramesh Bankar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shobha Walmik More Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhausaheb Deorao Sadashiv Vs State of Maharashtra and Others