Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a PIL order regarding land encroachment. The Court found the petition meritless due to lacunae in impleading respondents and misapprehension regarding the status of the PIL, which was disposed of after recording the respondent-surety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CP-763-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.763 OF 2019
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.146 OF 2016
Manohar Chimaji Chalak ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
..Respondents
Mrs Manjushri V.Narwade, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 18.11.2019
ORAL ORDER :
2
CP-763-2019
District Beed and secondly, directions not to allow any illegal construction on it. In response to notice issued by this Court, the respondents no.2 and 3 i.e. the Collector, Beed, District Beed and the Tahsildar, Georai, District Beed filed their affidavit-in-reply. The Division Bench of this court was pleased to record the statement in paragraph 6 of the reply in paragraph 2 of the order and the same reads thus :
“6. I say and submit that the encroachment on the land Sy.No.60 will be removed within one year after following due process of law. Because, at present there are pakka construction on the said survey land and after examining and verifying and after measuring the entire land i.e. Sy.No.60 of village Georai, necessary steps will be taken for removal of the encroachment from the said survey number.”
3
CP-763-2019
to the respondents. At the cost of repetition, we state that this Court, on perusal of the affidavit-in-reply and more particularly, statement in paragraph 6 was of clear opinion that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed meaning thereby there was a full stop to the proceeding, which was submitted in this Court in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, we are of a clear view that the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondentsauthorities are not taking any steps so as to remove the encroachment, in spite of directions issued by this Court, is only an assumption and presumption. We further state that the petitioner is not coming before this Court insofar as any other act, which may fall in the expectation of this Court in paragraph 3 that the respondent no.4 was not given any permission for construction on the aforesaid land. It is not the case of the petitioner that any permission is given for construction.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
vvr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has properly impleaded respondents in a contempt petition.
Whether there was a willful breach of court order regarding removal of encroachment on land.
Whether the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed based on respondent's affidavit statement.
Manohar Chimaji Chalak
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
