Disposed

Shankar Raghumal Rohida v. the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Haveli and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2018WP/9879/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of by directing the Pune Metropolitan Development Authority to expeditiously decide the petitioner's revised building proposal and consider related grievances within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.5 to decide the revised building proposal and consider grievances within four weeks, disposing of other proposals and grievances independently after hearing.

Shankar Raghumal Rohida Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

Mhi

WP-9879-16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9879 OF 2016

¶5

Shankar Raghumal Rohida Petitioner Versus

¶6

The Deputy Superintendent & Ors. Respondents

¶7

Mr.D.S.Patil, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP, for the State.

¶9

Mr. Vineek Naik, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. T.D.Deshmukh for respondent No.3.

¶10

Ms. Prachi Tatake i/b Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare for respondent No.4. Mr. Pramod N. Jadhav for respondent No.5.

¶11

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ. DATE :17^th April, 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The following averment is made in para 9 of the affidavit

¶14

dated 8.1.2018 filed by Shri Vivek Kharwadkar, Metropolitan Planner for respondent No.5:-

¶15

“ It is a matter of fact that the actual construction on site done by Respondent No.3 is done with some deviation in originally sanctioned plan by Collector, Pune dtd. 16/04/2013 and later on after formation of this Authority Respondent No.3 had submitted Revised Building proposal dated 9/09/2015. The Respondent No.3 also filed an application for Plinth checking dt. 29/02/2016.

Mhi

WP-9879-16.doc

It is further submitted that, the said revised proposal shall be scrutinised using prevailing development, control and promotion regulation. The changes made by the respondent 3 and 4 will be compounded if they are found to be compoundable before taking eventual action. The Respondent No.5 will follow the procedure as laid down in section 52 and section 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966.”

¶20

In the light of the above averment, learned counsel for the respective parties agree to the disposal of this petition by following order :-

¶21

(i) Respondent No.5 - Pune Metropolitan Development Authority shall decide the Revised Building Proposal dated 9.9.2015 filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

(ii) Along with the above referred proposal, Respondent No.5 shall also consider the grievances of the petitioner made in his complaint dated 9.12.2017.

¶23

(iii) It is specifically made clear that both the proposals of

Mhi

WP-9879-16.doc

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the petitioner's grievances made in the said complaint shall be disposed of independently, in accordance with law and after giving hearing to all concerned.

¶28

(iv) In order to enable Respondent No.5 to comply with this

¶29

order, both Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the petitioner shall remain present before Respondent No.5 on 25.4.2018 along with

¶30

the proposal and the complaint as well as the copy of this order.

¶31

Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.] [RANJIT MORE,J.]

Shankar Raghumal Rohida v. the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Haveli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Raghumal Rohida v. the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Haveli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Mr. Javed Akhtar Mohd. Hussain Siddiqui and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ld. Govt. Pleader and 8 Ors.

Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Grampanchayat Kumbhavalan through Sarpanch Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Airports Authority of India Vs M/S. Reliance Electronics and Anr.

Shri. Vaijanath Marotrao Kalse Vs the State Information Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai and Ors.