Disposed

Gajanan Mahadeo Dandge and Otehrs v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department and Others

Bombay HC4 Jul 2016WP/3732/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that disputed questions of fact arose regarding the petitioners' lease and the alleged encroachment. Without recording any findings on disputed facts, the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty granted to the petitioners to take such legal steps as were open to them and no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to petitioners to take such steps as open to them; no order as to costs.

Gajanan Mahadeo Dandge and Otehrs Vs State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

0407wp3732.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3732 OF 2015

¶5

(Gajanan Mahadeo Dandge & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra thr. Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,_____________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. JULY 04, 2016.

¶8

Heard Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.S. Rao, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Shri S.V. Sohoni, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioners is, though they have been given lease of a plot of land by Respondent No. 5 and were carrying on their business on the said piece of land as per law, all of a sudden and without any notice, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have dispossessed them on the assumption that the petitioners are encroachers.

¶10

Shri Sohoni, learned counsel is relying upon the reply affidavit. According to him, the petitioners have tres passed on the public road after M.S.R.T.C. plot and their establishments were constructed on public road, hence, without disturbing their possession on the piece of land leased out to them by the M.S.R.T.C., shops constructed on the public road have been removed.

¶11

Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent

¶12

¶13

0407wp3732.15

¶14

No. 5 does not dispute the submissions of Shri Sohoni, learned counsel.

¶15

The learned AGP submits that he is still awaiting instructions in this respect.

¶16

Shri Gandhi, learned counsel wants to rely upon some documents and submit that the petitioners were validly placed in possession by the M.S.R.T.C. and their structures were not encroachment upon the public road. At this stage, Shri Gandhi, learned counsel submits that M.S.R.T.C. itself had encroached on the government land, constructed a compound wall, shops within the compound wall and the shops were then leased out to the petitioners. He further adds that Respondent No. 3 – Corporation had thereafter given a notice to Respondent No. 5 to demolish that compound wall.

¶17

It is apparent that several disputed questions of fact arise in the matter. Hence, without recording any finding on any disputed question and with liberty to the petitioners to take such steps as are open to them in law, we dispose of the present writ petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

*GS.

Gajanan Mahadeo Dandge and Otehrs v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Mahadeo Dandge and Otehrs v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Midas Multispecialty Hospital Private Ltd., Nagpur through Its Director, Dr. Shrikant v. Mukewar Vs Union of India through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and 2 Others

Swapnil S/O Kirankumar Walali and Another Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad and Others

Rajendra S/O. Chandulal Bajpai Vs High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through Its Registrar, Mumbai and Others

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs State of Maha. through Urban Development Dept. through Secretary Mumbai and 4 Others

Pracheta J. Ladhake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip S/O Keshavrao Neralwar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and an