Disposed

Jafar Khan Gafur Khan and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Jul 2016WP/5051/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the demolition of petitioners' construction during an encroachment drive. The Court held that since a civil suit regarding the property is pending, the matter is to be agitated therein. A direction for enquiry into demolition was deemed premature.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; Court declined to issue directions for enquiry at this stage.

Jafar Khan Gafur Khan and Others Vs State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 wp 5051.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5051 OF 2015

¶4

Jafar Khan Gafur Khan and others .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri S. S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Satyajit S. bora, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2, 5 to 13.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2016.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. Mr. Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, civil suit is pending between the parties inspite of the fact that, civil suit was pending and the respondent has notice of the pendency of civil suit the respondents and its authorities illegally without observing the due procedure of law demolished the construction of petitioners, which was in existence for more than 40 years. The petitioners have placed on record documents to prima facie establish their title. The learned counsel submits that, even if in respect of other prayers made in the writ petition, the petitioners may have remedy

¶11

2 wp 5051.15

¶12

before the Civil Court, as far as prayer clause E is concerned, the Court may take cognizance of the same.

¶13

According to Mr. Bora, the learned counsel for Municipal Corporation the due procedure of law was followed. The construction of the petitioners was demolished in an encroachment drive. It is not that only the houses of petitioners were demolished, but in an encroachment drive number of houses were demolished. The petitioners are not owners of the properties in question. As due procedure of law is followed, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

¶14

It is not disputed that the civil suit is already filed by petitioners seeking injunction. In the said civil suit, it is submitted that, substantial reliefs regarding declaration, injunction and damages are already claimed. The petitioners can agitate in respect of said reliefs in the substantive civil suit. As far as relief claimed vide prayer clause E is concerned, at this stage it would be premature to issue directions as sought of making an enquiry against erring officials as contended by petitioners. Depending upon the decision of the civil suit, it will be open for petitioners to make such a prayer afresh. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶15

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

¶16

bsb/July 16

Jafar Khan Gafur Khan and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Khan Gafur Khan and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhamabai Maruti Shinde and Another through Gpa Subhash Gotiram Bhalerao Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Priyanka Ramdas Raut Vs the Union of India and Another

Jaikisan Matsavyavsay Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Madalmohi through Its Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Bhalchandra Kulkarni Vs District Deputy Registrar, Ahmednagar and Others

Sharad Bhivsen Salve Vs District Collector, Ahmednagar and Others

Gajendra Dashrath Prasad Jaiswal Vs Chanda @ Preeti Gajendra Jaiswal