Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2018WP/5756/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In multiple writ petitions challenging demolition orders and seeking protection of buildings pending regularization, the court declined to entertain the factual grievance. It vacated the interim order while leaving all contentions open due to pending adversarial proceedings before the appellate forum. The court clarified it expressed no opinion on rival claims.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

vikrant 1/3 905-WP-5755-2015.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5755 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5756 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5758 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5759 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5760 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5761 OF 2015

¶4

Shri. Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents ......

¶5

Mr. Rajesh Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2018.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

In all these Petitions, the petitioner was seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish and/or damage the buildings constructed on the properties more particularly described in the Petitions, pending a process called as regularization of the construction carried out at site.

¶9

vikrant 2/3 905-WP-5755-2015.odt

¶10

On the earlier occasion, the Petitioner and his Advocate Mr. Singh were absent. Hence, the Petitions were listed for dismissal.

¶11

Today, when they were called out, Mr. Singh apologizes for his absence and states that the pending applications have not been decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He keeps them pending and in the teeth of an order passed by this Court, proceeds to demolish and/or cause damage to the structures/buildings. All this is to defeat and frustrate the pending process, in the sense, the applications seeking regularization filed by the petitioner.

¶12

We do not think that we should entertain any factual grievance of this nature simply because it is conceded that the applications made by the petitioners are pending before the competent authority. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, also states that against the orders passed on the application seeking change from one non-agricultural purpose to another, some orders have been passed and which have been challenged before the appellate forum under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶13

In the teeth of these proceedings, it would be highly unsafe to entertain a Petition of this nature and adjudicate on a purely factual dispute. Therefore, leaving open all contentions and to be raised in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners, which are stated to be pending, we dispose of these Petitions. The ad-

¶14

vikrant 3/3 905-WP-5755-2015.odt interim/interim order stand vacated. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions.

¶15

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unique Spices Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Sursing Sonawane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.

Avimay Sohrab Hakim Vs District Superintendent of Land Records, Satara and Ors.

Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.