Disposed

Vasant Limbajirao Kokadwar v. Kautik Gunajirao Ghuge and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2018CA/3028/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding encroachment of a public road and lack of implementation of a development plan, the court noted that the Municipal Council had removed the encroachment. However, the court observed that a pending civil suit filed by the encroacher was delaying construction, directing the Trial Court to decide it within six months while disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to decide pending civil suit within six months; writ petition dismissed as encroachment removed.

Vasant Limbajirao Kokadwar Vs Kautik Gunajirao Ghuge and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

901-wp-2507-2006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

901 WRIT PETITION NO.2507 OF 2006
WITH CA/3028/2010 IN WP/2507/2006

¶5

KAUTIK GUNAJIRAO GHUGE AND ANR..PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. K. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. P. Sonpawle, Advocate for the Respondent
No.4.

¶9

Mr. Eknath P. Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent
No.5.

¶10

Mr. V. P. Latange, Advocate for the Respondent
No.6.

¶11

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶12

 DATED : 11th DECEMBER, 2018.

¶13

PER COURT:-

¶14

1.We have heard Mr. Thombre, learned counsel
for petitioners.

¶15

2.According to Mr. Thombre, learned counsel
for petitioners as per the development plan of the
Jintur City, the road is to be constructed from
Post Office to Main Road having width of 9 mtrs.
The road is almost complete, but because of
encroachment of respondent no.5, the completion of
the road work has not taken place. The notices are

¶16

(2) 901-wp-2507-2006

¶17

also issued to respondent no.5 by the Municipal
Council on 17.01.2003. The respondent no.5 stopped
the construction on the acquired plot, but however
again he started the work on the plot reserved.
Though petitioner no.1 and other persons approached
the Municipal Council pointing out the unauthorized
construction of respondent no.5, no action is
taken. Even, the petitioner had approached the
Executive Magistrate, Jintur. He also directed the
Chief Officer, Municipal Council to stop the
construction, however, no action is being taken.
The learned counsel submits that the public road is
encroached and the authorities are not taking any
action.

¶18

3.Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for respondent
no.5 submits that the petitioner has personal feud
against him. He has not alleged anything against
real encroacher. The suit is filed by respondent
no.5 and same is pending with the Trial Court after
remand from the Appellate Court. According to him,
respondent no.5 has not made encroachment. The
measurement has been directed to be made by the
Collector. It is under the valid permission, the
construction is being carried out by respondent
no.5.

¶19

4.Mr. Latange, learned counsel appears for
respondent no.6.

¶20

(3) 901-wp-2507-2006

¶21

5.The affidavit is filed by the Deputy
Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration
Worli, Mumbai. Paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the
affidavit reads thus:

¶22

“2.It is revealed from the record that
Municipal Council Authorities Jintur have
strictly followed the directions issued by
this Hon'ble High Court and submitted its
report. The deponent further submits that as
per the directions issued by this Hon'ble
High Court dated 02/03/2010 the Municipal
Council Jintur, removed encroachment on the
road from post office to main road and also
complied the said directions and submitted
the affidavit in this petition. The report
dated 22/03/2018 has been submitted to the
present respondent by Jintur Municipal
Council.

¶23

3.The deponent say and submit that, it
appears from record that civil suit was filed
against the Municipal Council by the
respondent no.5 for injunction and against
the order of C.J.J.D., Jintur, against that
Municipal Council Jintur preferred an appeal
in the District Court, Parbhani. The
District Court Parbhani allowed the said
appeal and remanded back the matter to
C.J.J.D. Jintur and that suit is now pending
before the C.J.J.D. Jintur, therefore in such
circumstances, if petitioner is having
certain grievances, he may raise its before
the Civil Court and while deciding earlier
two Writ Petitions Nos.3234/2010 and
5098/2010, this Hon'ble High Court observed
and given liberty to concerned petitioner to
approach the appropriate Court. In the
present petition it appears that prayer for
removal of encroachment is already considered
by this Hon'ble High Court by giving
directions to Municipal Authorities and the
MunicipalAuthoritiesJintur,already

¶24

(4) 901-wp-2507-2006

¶25

complied the said order. Hence nothing to
survive in this petition in view of the
report submitted by Municipal Council Jintur,
present petition may kindy be disposed of or
appropriate order may kindly be passed in the
interest of justice.”

¶26

6.As per the affidavit filed, the
encroachment is removed and the report to that
extent has been submitted to the deponent of the
said affidavit by Jintur Municipal Council.

¶27

7.Be that as it may, it is also observed
that the Civil Suit is filed by respondent no.5.
In an appeal filed by the Municipal Council it
is partly allowed and remanded to the Trial
Court. This Court in fact under order dated
03.02.2014 had directed the disposal of the suit
by 31.05.2014. It is submitted that the said
suit is still pending at the stage of evidence.
The learned Trial Judge ought to have decided
the suit as per the directions of this Court.

¶28

8.The Trial Court shall decide the suit
bearing R.C.S. no.16 of 2001 filed by respondent
no.5 expeditiously and under any circumstances
within a period of six (06) months. The
respondent no.5 and/or the defendants therein
shall not claim adjournment without genuine
reason. The Trial Court shall consider the
same.

¶29

9.The authorities shall also take steps
to construct the road from Post Office to main

¶30

(5) 901-wp-2507-2006

¶31

road as may be demarcated in the plan.

¶32

10.Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶33

costs.

¶34

11.In view of disposal of writ petition
no.2507 of 2006, nothing survives in the present
civil application. Civil Application as such
disposed of.

¶35

(R. G. AVACHAT) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

Devendra/December-18

Vasant Limbajirao Kokadwar v. Kautik Gunajirao Ghuge and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Limbajirao Kokadwar v. Kautik Gunajirao Ghuge 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

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

Kashinath Piraji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atul Anilrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Kirankumar Uttamrao Metalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jeevan Vithalrao Hendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others