Disposed

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC13 Jun 2018PIL/133/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Collector to conduct an inquiry into allegations of encroachment by construction permit holders on land whose title was disputed between the Municipal Council and the State Government, pending a report on possession and construction permissions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector to hold an inquiry into the matter after giving parties necessary opportunity and to report by 4th October, 2018.

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 PIL133.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.133 OF 2017

¶5

(MEGHRAJ PUNDLIK DONGARE WARDHA...VS..STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.

¶9

DATED : JUNE 13, 2018.

¶10

Heard Shri R.S.Kurekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neeraj Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Nobody appears for respondent No.5Municipal Council. Advocate Shri V.T.Deshpande for the respondent Nos. 6 to 12.

¶11

Facts show that the Municipal Council has sometime in January, 2016 cancelled permission to construct given to respondent Nos. 6 to 12 and therefore, the present petition has been filed with a grievance that those respondents have encroached upon the Government land.

¶12

Letter dated 21/01/2016 written by Municipal Council itself shows that permission for construction was given by the Municipal Council under the impression that the land belongs to it. Thus, at least while granting permission Municipal Council did not treat respondent Nos. 6 to 12 as encroachers. In a subsequent development the land is found not belonging to Municipal Council that too by Sub-Divisional Officer.

¶13

2 PIL133.17

¶14

In these circumstances, the petitioner has to explain how the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 were initially placed in possession of their respective plots. That explanation and reply to relevant paragraphs are lacking.

¶15

However, from the communication dated 21/01/1966 accepted by Municipal Council, it appears that the State Government has not placed respondent Nos. 6 to 12 in possession and have not permitted them to construct.

¶16

In this Public Interest Litigation, therefore, we direct the respondent No.2-Collector to hold inquiry into the matter after giving parties necessary opportunity.

¶17

We direct parties to appear before the respondent No.2-Authority on 4^th July, 2018 and abide by his further instructions in the matter.

¶18

The Collector shall complete the inquiry on or before 4^th October, 2018.

¶19

Keeping all rival contentions open and with liberty to the parties to take such other steps as are available in law, we dispose of the Public Interest Litigation. No costs.

¶20

RRaut..

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai 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

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal Vs the Director General of Civil Aviation and 2 Ors.

Sudesh Balkrishna Mukkawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Mr. Ganpat Jotiba Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Belapur Parali Railway Pravasi Seva Sanstha through Its Secretary Ritesh Vijay Kumar Bhandari Vs the Union of India and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Vidyasagar Dube Vs the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) and Another Vs Smt. Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai, W/O Late Shri Ghasiram S/O Arjun Gond

Dilip S/O Hanumanji Kalaskar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai through Its Vice President and Others

Dilip S/O Hanumanji Kalaskar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai through Its Vice President and Others

Jyotiram S/O Babusing Rathod Vs the Collector, Collector Office, Washim and Others

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary, Kalyan Kumar ,Chandrapur and Others Vs the Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi

Jyotiram S/O Babusing Rathod Vs the Collector, Collector Office, Washim and Others