Disposed

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2017PIL/12/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed petitioners to file an application with the Nagar Panchayat Chief Officer within four weeks regarding encroachment removal. The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of with directions for refund of legal costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to file an application with the Chief Officer within four weeks for removal of encroachment.

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

PIL 12.15.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIOIN NO.12 OF 2015

¶5

Shaikh Sameer Rashid & Another Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶7

Mr. N.K. Tungar, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. A.R. Kale AGP for Respondent State Mr. S.S. Dambe Advocate for Respondent No.6 Mr. G.G. Kadam Advocate for Respondent No.9 Mr. A.Y. Pandule Advocate for Respondent No.7 Mr. V.D. Salunke Advocate for Respondent No.10

¶8

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1 It is informed that, the Village Panchayat is now converted into Nagar Panchayat and said Nagar Panchayat is represented by respondent No.26 Chief Officer. The petitioners are making allegations in respect of commission of encroachment over the property, belonging to erstwhile Grampanchayat, the possession of which might have been handed over to Zilha Parishad.

¶11

{2}

¶12

PIL 12.15.odt

¶13

2 It would be open for the petitioners to tender an application to the Chief Officer of the Nagar Panchayat for taking steps in respect of removal of encroachment. Respondent No.26 in concurrence with the holder of the property and after observing the procedure prescribed under law, may take appropriate steps as permissible. It would be open for the petitioners to tender an application to respondent No.26 within a period of four weeks from today. On tendering of such application, respondent No.26 may take appropriate steps as specified above as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

3 With the directions as above, the PIL stands disposed of.

¶15

4 Out of the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioners in this Court in pursuance to the directions issued by us earlier, with the consent of the petitioners, Rs.10,000/- shall be transferred to the account of Library of Advocates Association of Bombay High Court, bench at Aurangabad and balance of Rs.15,000/- shall be refunded to the petitioners.

¶16

(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M. BORDE, J)

¶17

vbd

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Gautam Baburao Maske and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shri Shrikant Jetyappa Bansode Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Aam Aadmi Lok Manch through Its President Shri. P.P. Goyal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Shivajirao Mhaske Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Iliyas Malik Qalander Malik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Nathesingh Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rubicon Formulations Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Director Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramkrishna Dattatray Mungikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Nagnath Paldewar through Its Proprietor Pravin Nagnath Paldewar Vs the Regional Manager Central Warehousing Corporation Mumbai

Sandhya Charles Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others