Disposed

Mr. Dagadu Sudamrao Khandave and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2019PIL/1/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Collector, Pune, to call for records regarding unauthorized construction by Respondent No.5 (a Trust) on State land at Lohgaon, Pune. The Court ordered an inquiry and completion within six months, explicitly stating it expresses no conclusive opinion on the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Collector, Pune to call records, conduct enquiry, and complete within six months; no conclusive opinion expressed by the Court.

Mr. Dagadu Sudamrao Khandave and Anr. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

PIL 1.15.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2015

¶6

Mr. Dagadu Sudamrao Khandave and Anr. … Petitioners.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 4 JANUARY, 2019.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

This Public Interest Litigation filed in the year 2015 has raised an issue concerning an alleged unauthorized construction put up by the Respondent No.5 – Trust on the lands owned by the State Government.

¶16

The Petitioner has placed reliance on the entries in the City Survey records at Exhibit A. It is further submitted by the

¶17

PIL 1.15.doc

¶18

¶19

Counsel that, on the Petitioner's complaint the Collector, Pune had directed the Tahsildar, Haveli, by a communication dated 29 December 2012 for conducting an enquiry. It is submitted that thereafter, no steps were taken to stop the alleged unauthorized construction. The Petitioner has prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to take necessary action in accordance with law against the illegal and unauthorized construction and encroachment carried out by Respondent No.5 – Trust on the said property.

¶20

By an order dated 4 December 2015 the Court had issued notice to Respondent No.5. The Petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 7 February 2018 for want of service of notice. The learned Counsel submits that the Petition came to be dismissed against Respondent No.5 by order of the Registrar (Judicial-I) passed on 7 March 2018. No reply has been tendered by the Respondents.

¶21

We have perused the record. The Addl. Govt. Pleader still seeks some time for taking instructions.

¶22

Having considered the matter, we find that the Petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions :-

¶23

3 9. PIL 1.15.doc

¶24

(a) The Collector, Pune is directed to call for the concerned record in respect of the construction carried out by Respondent No.5 – Trust at Village Lohgaon, Taluka Pune, District – Pune and the enquiry report, if any, submitted by the Tahsildar, Haveli. In case the Collector, Pune finds that the construction was carried out in contravention of the mandatory provisions of law, then appropriate steps be taken after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the Respondent No.5 – Trust.

¶25

(b) It is clarified that we have not expressed any conclusive opinion on the submissions made by the Petitioner. The Collector or other officers will take an appropriate view of the matter after a thorough enquiry. The process be completed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within period of six months from today.

¶26

¶27

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr. Dagadu Sudamrao Khandave and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dagadu Sudamrao Khandave and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Ratan Soli Luth of Nashik Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sudhir Ramchandra Karale Vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Div. Pune and Ors.

Vakil R. Karra Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad Vs the Union of India and Others

Grampanchayat Alsand, through Its Sarpanch Vs Panchayat Samiti, Khanapur and Ors.

Shri. R. R. Tripathi Vs Union of India Thru Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Grampanchayat Alsand, through Its Sarpanch Vs Panchayat Samiti, Khanapur and Ors.

Rekha Mallikarjun Kanmande and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Sanjay Brijkishorlal Nirupam Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shri. R. R. Tripathi Vs Union of India Thru Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.