Shri. Vijay Mahadev Kaparekar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2019PIL/85/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court observed that land leveling by a respondent reduced input to a dam. Directed State to verify if leveling was permissible and ensure gradient restoration if not; expediate royalty appeal if permissible.

What did the court decide?

Directed State of Maharashtra and Respondent No.4 to verify permissibility of land leveling and ensure gradient restoration or expedite royalty appeal.

Shri. Vijay Mahadev Kaparekar and Anr. Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

PIL 85.16.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 85 OF 2016

¶6

Vijay Mahadev Kaparekar and Anr.

¶7

… Petitioners.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

State of Maharashtra through Secretary & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶10

Mr. S.S. Gadre for the Petitioners. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶11

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate, Mr. S. Kanetkar a/w. Sachin Mahagavkar, Jimish Shah and G.S. Sethi I/b. Divya Shah Associates for Respondent No.2.

¶12

Mr. C.G. Gavnekar a/w. Ashutosh Gavnekar for Respondent 4.

¶13

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶14

DATE : 10 JUNE 2019.

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Case pleaded by

¶17

the Writ Petitioners is that a dam constructed in District Raigad

¶18

named Nadhal Dam has been encroached upon by the second

¶19

Respondent who has illegally brought soil on his land and dumped

¶20

PIL 85.16.doc

¶21

¶22

the same along the banks of the dam, thereby reducing the storage capacity of the dam.

¶23

Prayer made is to direct Respondent No.2 to remove the soil and Respondent No.4 to ensure that the encroached area of the dam is made free from encroachment by removing the soil.

¶24

In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth Respondent it is pleaded that Respondent No.2 owns land comprise in Survey No.81/2 in Village Nadhal and made an application for demarcation to be carried out. As a result of the demarcation of the land owned by Respondent No.2, it was found that Respondent No.2 had not encroached on any part of the reservoir.

¶25

Further pleadings of the parties show that the second Respondent who owns 1.35 hectors land in the afore-noted survey sought permission to level his land on the plea that part of the land was higher. Further pleadings of the parties show that it is the case of the second Respondent that he was granted permission to level his

¶26

PIL 85.16.doc

¶27

¶28

land. We hasten to add that no permission granted, as pleaded by the second Respondent, has been annexed. Be that as it may, the pleadings of the second Respondent brings out that Respondent No.3 issued a penalty notice and pursuant to which it passed an order levying fine sum of ` 87,97,800/-. The fine has been imposed on the ground that leveling has been done by bringing excess soil to the land and royalty has not been paid. Said order has been challenged by the second Respondent. The appeal awaits a decision.

¶29

What appears to have happened is this. As a result of leveling of his land by the second Respondent, the gradient which existed hithertofore has vanished. Thus rain water does not flow into the dam.

¶30

The State of Maharashtra and the fourth Respondent are directed to consider whether the leveling of the land by the second Respondent was permissible and if it is found that the leveling was not permissible, to ensure that the gradient is restored. If it is found

¶31

PIL 85.16.doc

¶32

¶33

that the leveling was permissible, the issue of royalty which has been

¶34

levied upon the second Respondent would be taken to its logical conclusion i.e. the Appeal filed by the second Respondent against the penalty levied would be decided expeditiously.

¶35

The Petition is disposed of.

¶36

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Shri. Vijay Mahadev Kaparekar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vijay Mahadev Kaparekar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

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

Sudhir Madhav Joshi Vs D. Y. Patil College - Ramrao Adik Education Society and Ors.

Parent'S Association of Medical Students - Maharashtra Vs Director General of Income-Tax (Inv),Pune and Ors.

Dhananjay Vithal Gawade Vs the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Ministry of Power and Energy State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Human Rights Protection and Awarenaess Pune through President and Anr. Vs Union of India Thorugh the Secretary and Ors.

Vitthal S/O. Mahadeorao Gawande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Dept. and Others

Siyaram S/O Gondusao Sivane Vs State of Maharashtra, Food and Civil Supply Dept. Thr. Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Akhil Bhartiya O.B.C. Mahasangh, through Its Chairman, Shri Baban Bhauraoji Taywade and Another Vs Union of India, Thr.Its Secretary, Department Ot Human Resource and Higher Education,New Dlehi and

Vikrant S/O Prabhakar Gonnade Vs Bank of Maharashtra, through Its General Manager, Pune and Another

Jyotshna D/O. Chhabilal Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Khajagee Prathamik Shikshak Sevak Samittee and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khajajee Prathamik Shikshak Sevak Samittee and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. G.P. Bhawane Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Dr. G.P. Bhawane Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Shri. Ramchandra Bandu Kshirsagar Vs Krishnamai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhamner, through President, Shri. B. Y. Kshirsagar and Ors.