Dismissed

M/S. F. a. Construction v. Tahasildar Executive Magistrate Shahapur and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2018WP/3334/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demolition of unauthorized structures built for a construction camp as the underlying contract was terminated. However, the court permitted the petitioner to dismantle structures and remove materials within two weeks while staying the proceedings during that period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to dismantle structures and remove materials within two weeks; impugned actions stayed during this period.

M/S. F. a. Construction Vs Tahasildar Executive… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Digitally signed by Shubhada Shubhada Shankar Shankar KadamDate: Kadam 2018.07.17 13:31:48 +0530

¶2

903 wp 3334.16.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3334 of 2016

¶5

M/s. F. A. Construction …..Petitioner versus Tahasildar Executive Magistrate, Shahapur and ors. …..Respondents

¶6

Mr. R. V. Govilkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State. Mr. S. S. Jadhav, advocate for the respondent No.6.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 13^th JULY, 2018.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Heard learned counsel and learned AGP for the respective

¶10

parties.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the actions of the respondent No.3- Gram Panchayat for demolition of the unauthorized structures on survey No.111/2. The petitioner is a construction company. He was awarded work of construction of Dam of Shai river in Taluka Shahpur and, in view of the award of the said work, the petitioner carried out temporary construction on the said survey number for base camp. Admittedly, there is no dispute of fact that the said construction was carried out by the petitioner without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority. Be that as it may, even by an order dated 8^th November, 2016, the contract between the petitioner and the Government regarding construction of Dam on Shai River is also terminated.

¶12

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶13

903 wp 3334.16.doc

¶14

3. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances

¶15

of the case, we do not find any justification in entertaining this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to dismantle the structures/construction and take the temporary sheds and materials from the site. Learned AGP and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 have no objection to this. In that view of the matter, we permit the petitioner to dismantle the said temporary structures/construction and take the material from the site within a period of two weeks from today. For a period of two weeks from today, the Government or the Gram Panchayat shall not proceed in pursuance of the impugned notices. However, after expiry of the said period of two weeks, they are at liberty to proceed against the said structures/construction in pursuance of the impugned notices.

¶17

[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

M/S. F. a. Construction v. Tahasildar Executive Magistrate Shahapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. F. a. Construction v. Tahasildar Executive Magistrate Shahapur and Ors.

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

Vijay Kamal Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Krishna Parisar Jalvikas Sanstha, Chaupale, through Its Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Kala Vitthal Channapattan Vs the Bharat Petroleum Corp. Lted. and Anr.

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

M/S. Alpha Kooltherm Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

NTPC Limited, through Raghunath Rao Vs the Collector of Stamps, Kurla and Ors.