Disposed

Laxmibai Damodhar Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Nov 2019PIL/76/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL regarding non-removal of encroachment. It directed the Collector to seek feedback on a prior instruction to the Panchayat Samittee. If no response, the Collector was directed to enforce removal under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Collector to seek feedback on a prior instruction to the Panchayat Samittee, and to take appropriate action to remove encroachment under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat A

Laxmibai Damodhar Thorat Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 31-PILWP-76-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76 OF 2016

¶4

LAXMIBAI DAMODHAR THORAT

¶5

…PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

…RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. N.I. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

¶10

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 18^th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

The only grievance raised in the petition is of non-removal of the encroachment in spite of the order of this Court as well as the order passed by the competent Civil Court.

¶14

Mr Jadhav, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 through Chandrakant Prakash Shelke, Tahsildar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad way back in the year 2016. In the said affidavit in reply, reference is made. In the affidavit in reply, the deponent i.e. Shri C.P. Shelke, Tahsildar, Gangapaur admits the fact situation of filing of the petition, order

¶15

2 31-PILWP-76-2016

¶16

passed by this Court dated 24.05.2003, as well the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, whereby, Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 510/2004 by respondent No. 6 was dismissed. The copy of the letter dated 13.07.2016 is placed on record annexed to the affidavit in reply. The Tahsildar, Gangapur directed the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee, Gangapur to remove the encroachment expeditiously by issuing notice and submit the action taken report to the Tahsildar. The copy of this communication is also addressed to the Collector, Aurangabad.

¶17

Learned Counsel Mr. Jadhav submits that there is no progress as per his instructions, in spite of the letter issued to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee, Gangapur dated 13.07.2016. Considering these facts, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by directing respondent No. 3, Collector to seek feed back and the action taken report through Tahsildar, Gangapur on the backdrop of communication dated 13.07.2016.

¶18

In case, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee, Gangapur fails to show any positive response, the Collector, Aurangabad to exercise his powers under section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, and more particularly, under section 53 (2) (a).

¶19

3 31-PILWP-76-2016

¶20

We further state that if the Collector is of the opinion that if the Panchayat Samittee, Gangapur fails to take any action, the Collector, Aurangabad to take appropriate action as specified under section 2(a) of Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act within a period of two weeks.

¶21

With these directions, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶22

Authenticated copy of this order be issued to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The learned Assistant Government Pleader to communicate the order to the Collector, Aurangabad.

¶23

[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

mta

Laxmibai Damodhar Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmibai Damodhar Thorat 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vickram Crishna and Ors. Vs Unique Indentification Authority of India and Anr.

Khatri Mohammad Nafees Abdul Jabbar Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Macchindranath Narahari Karalkar S/O Narhari Narayan Karalkar Vs the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Rajkumar Awasthi Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Hari Hotumal Tanwani Vs the Commissioner-Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp.and Ors.

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Raja Narasimhan and Anr. Vs Mah. Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Deepak Nathani Vs Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Indira Shankar Karode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Udhav Vitthalrao Shinde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajendra Sambhaji Somwanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Baswant Sambhaji Ubale and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Rajendra Laxman Joshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manohar Chimaji Chalak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others