Disposed

Vithal Narayan More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Jul 2018PIL/32/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, disposed of a PIL petition seeking directions to complete a road connecting Ukhalwadi and Jatnandur. The Court directed the Zilla Parishad to finish the balance road work within one year and to legally acquire land belonging to respondents if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Zilla Parishad to complete the balance work of the road within one year and to take legal steps to acquire passing land if required.

Vithal Narayan More Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Sr932PIL32.2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 32 OF 2017

¶4

Vitthal S/o Narayan More

¶5

Petitioner...

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

Respondents...

¶9

Mr N. P. Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for respondent/State Mr K. B. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No. 3 Mr S. S. Kazi, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 8

¶10

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 19^TH JULY, 2018.

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

Respondent No. 3 was called upon to explain as to why action shall not be initiated against him for not responding to the notice issued by this Court and consequential failure of the concerned respondent to cooperate this Court in the matter of administration of justice. Respondent No. 3 through his subordinate presented an affidavit and tendered apology. Apology tendered by the respondent No. 3 through his subordinate, is accepted. As such, the notice issued on 13^th June, 2018 stands recalled.

¶14

2 Sr932PIL32.2017

¶15

The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to construct the balance portion of road connecting villages Ukhalwadi & Jatnandur, Tq. Shirur (Kasar), Dist. Beed. It appears that, the owners of agricultural land Gut Nos. 372, 374 and 382 presented a suit being Reg. Civil Suit No. 18/2000, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the State and Zilla parishad, restraining them from laying road through their properties. The trial Court after considering the evidence has recorded a finding that defendants are illegally constructing the road through the land Gut Nos. 372, 374 and 382. The trial Court as such passed a decree restraining the defendants from carrying out the work of the proposed approach road from land Gut Nos. 372, 374 and 382. It is the contention of the respondents/State that the road in question passes through the land Gut Nos. 373 and 374, which do not belong to respondents No. 5 to 8. If that is the case, there was no reason for the Zilla Parishad to avoid completion of the balance work of the road. If at all, any portion of the road passes through the land belonging to respondents No. 5 to 8, it is open for the Zilla Parishad to adopt proper procedure and complete the balance work of the road. In any case, it is the responsibility of the Zilla Parishad to complete the balance work of the road and provide necessary facilities to the concerned.

¶16

3 Sr932PIL32.2017

¶17

In the circumstances, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Zilla Parishad to complete the balance work of the road in question, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. If at all the proposed road passes through the land belonging to respondents no. 5 to 8, it shall be the responsibility of the Zilla Parishad to take steps as permissible in law for acquiring property. If it is the contention of the respondents No. 1 to 4 that, road does not pass through the property belonging to the respondents No. 5 to 8, the Zilla Parishad shall complete the balance work forthwith.

¶18

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ R. M. BORDE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

Punde

Vithal Narayan More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vithal Narayan More 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kawadu S/O Hariji Wanjari Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Irrigation Project and Road Department, New Delhi and Others

Gajanan Baburao Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Rakesh Subhash Bhamare Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Public Health Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mega City Debris Truck Welfare Association Vs Union of India and 17 Ors.

Suhas Chintaman Mulay Vs the Union of India and Others

Rajesh S/O Kawadu Nandurkar and Another Vs Addl. Secretary and Mission Director, National Health Mission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfar

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Omprakash Narsayya Shrilele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Proposed Dnyanopasak Mahavidyalayin Karmachari Sahakari Grugh Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Parbhani Tr Chi Pr Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagvat Yamaji Kalwaghe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Munasheboddin Mujiboddin Kaji Vs Shaikh Ashfaq Shaikh Isaq Inamdar and Others

Rutuja Raman Mitake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manisha Hanmantrao Kalyanpad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others