Disposed

Surekha Dilip Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Aug 2016WP/2224/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging municipal notices for road widening. Directions were issued for joint measurement, immediate removal of construction, payment of compensation within 3 months, and initiation of acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Joint measurement within 7 days, construction removal, compensation payment within 3 months, and immediate initiation of acquisition proceedings.

Surekha Dilip Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP3323.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3323 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7025 OF 2016

¶4

Shamshodin S/o. Anwarudin and others .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioners. Miss S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1566 OF 2015

¶9

Venkat S/o. Dhondiram Lad .. Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶12

Shri Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Miss S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶13

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1567 OF 2015

¶14

Sayyad Zainulabedin S/o. Hafizoddin .. Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶17

2 WP3323.15

¶18

Shri Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Miss S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 2224 OF 2016

¶21

Dr. Surekha W/o. Dilip Deshmukh .. Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶24

Shri Amol N. Kakade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Miss S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶25

WITH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 8188 OF 2016

¶27

Karimoddin Papa S/o. Bashiroddin and others .. Petitioners

¶28

Versus

¶29

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶30

Shri Amol N. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioners. Miss S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶31

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2016.

¶32

PER COURT :-

¶33

We have heard Mr. Suryawanshi and Mr. Kakade, the learned counsel for respective parties, so also, Mr. Thombre the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, Beed, so also, the learned A. G. P. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the

¶34

3 WP3323.15

¶35

Respondent - Municipal Council has issued proclamation and the notice directing to remove the construction to be affected in the widening of Balbhim chowk to Bindusara River road in the development plan. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, without taking up acquisition proceedings the same could not have been done. Mr. Thombre, the learned counsel for the Municipal Council submits that, public work is undertaken and except the Petitioners all other Persons have removed the construction which was being affected by the road widening. Because of the present petition being filed the work of road could not commence further. The learned counsel submits that, the Municipal Council has filed an undertaking to this court stating that, if, the Petitioners co-operate and remove the area affected by the road widening and remove the construction or allow the Respondent to remove the construction then, within 4 months the compensation amount as per the valuation of the property would be paid to the Petitioners.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respective Petitioners submits that, the valuation of the construction is already communicated by the P. W. D. to the Municipal Council, the Respondent should pay the amount of compensation as per the said valuation and on payment of the same within 7 days they would remove the construction and the said compensation would be without prejudice to the further rights of the Petitioners to claim enhanced compensation.

¶37

We have considered the submissions and the undertakings filed by the respective parties. The undertakings filed are taken on record. It appears that majority of the persons have removed the construction which was not affected in the road widening. The Petitioners are also ready to co-operate. The Municipal Council

¶38

4 WP3323.15

¶39

has also assured to pay compensation amount as per the valuation. As such considering the public work involved and assurance given by the respective parties we pass the following order -

¶40

ORDER

¶41

A] The Petitioners would remove their construction to be affected in road widening after conducting joint measurement immediately within seven (7) days of the joint measurement being conducted.

¶42

B] After the construction is removed by the Petitioners the Respondent Municipal Council shall from the date of removal of the construction of the affected area shall pay to the Petitioners compensation as per the valuation within three (3) months.

¶43

C] The said payment would be without prejudice to the rights of the respective parties to claim enhanced amount of compensation as is permissible in law. The Respondent shall take up acquisition proceedings immediately.

¶44

D] The parties shall co-operate with each other for public work.

¶45

The Writ Petitions are disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.

¶46

The Civil Application also stands disposed of.

¶47

sam/July.16

¶48

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

Surekha Dilip Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Dilip Deshmukh v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesaheb Shrikrushnarao Deshmukh and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Jame Masjid Kasum Kot Bk Trust, Amravati Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Vandana Prakash Marawar Vs Union of India and Others

Bhimrao Shivaji Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Venkat Dhondiram Lad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayyad Zainulabedin Hafizoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others