Dismissed

Shri. Prakash Laxman Jagtap and Anr. v. the Pimpri - Chinchwad New Township Developement Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2017PIL/51/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On Jan 26 PIL 51-17, the Bombay HC ordered the first respondent to pursue notices for removing unauthorised constructions on their land and directed the third respondent to assist.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to take the letter at Exhibit 'F' to its logical end and directed the third respondent to provide all assistance for removal of unauthorised constructions.

Shri. Prakash Laxman Jagtap and Anr. Vs the Pimpri… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

26 PIL 51-17.doc

¶2

Sequeira

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 51 OF 2017

¶5

Mr.Prakash Laxman Jagtap & anr. .. Petitioners Vs The Pimpri-Chinchwad New Township Development Authority & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Vasant Raut, for Petitioners.

¶7

Ms.M.P.Thakur - AGP, for Respondent-State.

¶8

Mr.Mihir Raut i/b Mr.N.P.Deshpande, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM : DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & N.M.JAMDAR, J. Date : September 14, 2017.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard learned counsel for Petitioners. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are represented. The contention of Petitioners is that some private persons are carrying on unauthorised and illegal construction upon the land belonging to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on Survey no.4 to 8 and 10 to 12 situated at Thergaon, Taluka Mulshi, District - Pune. Apparently, Petitioners have not made the so-called encroachers who are unauthorisedly carrying on illegal construction on the land belonging to Respondent No.1 in terms of 7/12 extract,

¶12

2 26 PIL 51-17.doc

¶13

as party respondents. In terms of Exhibit 'F' at page 281 which is in Marathi, the first Respondent seems to have stated that more than 4000 notices were issued to the so-called unauthorised persons for removing the unauthorised construction or to vacate the land belonging to the first and second Respondent. This information was given by the first Respondent, on 16 March 2017. Since the first Respondent is also admitting that there are illegal and unauthorised encroachers on the properties belonging to the Respondent No.1, we direct the first Respondent to take the notice referred to in the letter at Exhibit 'F' dated 16 March 2017, to its logical end. We further make it clear that the third Respondent must give all the assistance required for tackling the problem of removal of unauthorised constructions by the first and second Respondents whenever first and second Respondent require such assistance. We hope that Respondents will act within a reasonable time in terms of the letter dated 16 March 2017.

¶14

The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Shri. Prakash Laxman Jagtap and Anr. v. the Pimpri - Chinchwad New Township Developement Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prakash Laxman Jagtap and Anr. v. the Pimpri - Chinchwad New Township Developement Authority and Ors.

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

Panshet Purgrast Samittee Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Rural Development and Water, Mumbai and Others

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur Vs National Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Officer and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath Jadhav Vs Sharad Dattatraya Jadhav and Ors.

Santosh S/O. Isram More Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Village Development of Village Development Mumbai and

Jayshri Vijaykumar Jambhale Vs Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, through Chief Officer, Kulgaon and Ors.

Citizen Circle for Social Welfare and Education Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shri. Manohar Vishnu Bhalekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Shri. Pandurang Patil .

Shri. Dnyanu Naru Mali Alias Gore Karta-Huf (Decd) through His Son Shri Kashinath D. Gore and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and Ors.

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Shri Naik and 2 Ors.

Maruti Parshuram Shedge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Rural Development and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice through Its Authrized Signatory Vs Union of India and Anr.