Disposed

Sikandar Shaikh Budhan Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Feb 2019PIL/162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This IT judgment orders the respondent Grampanchayat to remove illegal encroachments expeditiously within six months. The court directs that Rs. 15,000 of the petitioner's deposit be diverted to the Government Cancer Hospital at Aurangabad, with the balance returned.

What did the court decide?

Removal of encroachments within 6 months; diversion of Rs. 15,000 to Government Cancer Hospital at Aurangabad; release of remaining deposit.

Sikandar Shaikh Budhan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

162.16PIL.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

965 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.162 OF 2016

¶5

SIKANDAR SHAIKH BUDHAN SHAIKH
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Mr.Kiran Nagarkar, Advocate holding for
Mrs.Smita S.Kulkarni, Advocate for the
petitioner

¶9

Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, Addl.G.P. for Respondent –
State

¶10

Miss S.A.Patel, Advocate holding for
Mr.A.A.More, Advocate for respondent nos.9
and 10.

¶11

Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent nos.11
to 13.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
 R.G.AVACHAT,JJ.
 DATE : 15.02.2019

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1]LearnedAdditionalGovernment

¶16

Pleader has tendered across the bar affidavit

¶17

in reply, and the same is taken on record.

¶18

2]LearnedAdditionalGovernment
Pleader submits that, if necessary, full co-

¶19

operation and police force will be provided

¶20

to the Grampanchayat to remove unauthorized

¶21

162.16PIL.odt

¶22

¶23

and illegal encroachment on the land bearing

¶24

Gat Nos.55, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84

¶25

and land bearing Gat No.2, situate at village
Ranjangaon Shenpunji, and the Grampanchayat
can go ahead for removal of the unauthorized
and illegal encroachments on the aforesaid

¶26

land, however, subject to following the
procedure as contemplated under the relevant
Law.

¶27

3]TheGrampanchayatshalltake

¶28

appropriate steps so as to remove

¶29

unauthorized and illegal encroachment after
following the relevant procedure, as

¶30

expeditiously as possible, however, within 6
months from today, and submit report to that
effect to respondent nos.3 to 6. Accordingly,
the Petition stands disposed of.

¶31

4]The petitioner has deposited the
amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Court. Learned

¶32

counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶33

162.16PIL.odt

¶34

¶35

graciously informs this Court and submits
that, out of the aforesaid amount, the
petitioner is ready to give Rs.15,000/-
[Rs.Fifteen Thousand only] to the Government
Cancer Hospital at Aurangabad. The Registry

¶36

to divert an amount of Rs.15,000/- in the
account of the Government Cancer Hospital at
Aurangabad, bearing Account No.18880100017570

¶37

of Bank of Baroda, Branch at Samarthnagar,
Aurangabad, and the remaining amount of

¶38

Rs.10,000/- be returned to the petitioner.

¶39

DDC

Sikandar Shaikh Budhan Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Shaikh Budhan Shaikh 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

Rafikkha Babakha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hemant Arunchandra Kapadia Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Mumbai and Others

Hiralal Motilal Desarda Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Water Resource Dept. and Ors.

Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vivek S/O Khanderao Tale Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Mumbai and Others

Ramdas Hiru Mhatre and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra (through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya) and Ors.

The Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad Vs Dr. Salim Ali Lake Conservation Forum Aurangabad through Its Co. Ordinator and Others

Akash Shamuvel Ghatvisave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tolabai W/O. Raosaheb Dabyakale (C-8012) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrikant S/O. Kishor Aarak and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asha Madhukar Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hemant Kumar Fakira Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others