Disposed

Rajnarayan Chandradev Yadav v. the Forest Conservator and Director, Sanjya Gandhi National Park and 2 Others

Bombay HC14 Aug 2018CONPW/52/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition arising from a writ petition involving property possession and water supply. The court noted that possession was returned and clarified the water supply status, after which the petitioner conceded the grievance was moot.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as the grievance was deemed moot.

Rajnarayan Chandradev Yadav Vs the Forest Conservator and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

P.H. Jayani 02 CONPW52.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2017 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 385 OF 2015

¶5

Rajnarayan Chandradev Yadav ….Petitioner V/s. The Forest Conservator and Director, Sanjay Gandhi National Park & Ors. ….Respondents

¶6

Ms. Mahi Prakash a/w. Nikita Talwani i/b. Ms. Asya Raje for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Ramesh R. Shinde for Respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(b).

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶9

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2018

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶13

In pursuance of the directions given in the order dated 30^th July,

¶14

2018, the respondent nos.2(a) and 2(b) has already given possession of

¶15

the subject flat to the petitioner and this fact is noted in the order dated 07^th August, 2018.

¶16

On 07^th August, 2018, the petitioner made a grievance that the

¶17

water connection to the subject flat is disconnect by the respondent

¶18

¶19

P.H. Jayani 02 CONPW52.17.doc

¶20

no.3/society and therefore, we directed Secretary of the respondent

¶21

no.3/society to restore the water connection.

¶22

Mr. G.W. Mattos, learned AGP, on instructions, states that the water connection was never disconnected. However, the members of the respondent no.3/society are getting water on alternative day. The learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute that her client is getting water on alternative day.

¶23

Mr. Ramesh Shinde, learned counsel for respondent nos.2(a) and 2(b) on behalf of his clients makes a statement that they will not interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject flat. Statement is accepted.

¶24

In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the grievance raised in the petition does not survive. Hence, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶26

Rajnarayan Chandradev Yadav v. the Forest Conservator and Director, Sanjya Gandhi National Park and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnarayan Chandradev Yadav v. the Forest Conservator and Director, Sanjya Gandhi National Park and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhyavarti Samiti Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Others

Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. Vs Deputy Director and 3 Ors.

Mars Enterprises and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Jumman a. Kadar Shaikh and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Rajaram Fulaji Pawar Vs the Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Nasik and Ors.

Mrs. Sunanda Eknath Bhaskar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.