Remanded

Vinayak Kundalik Mane v. Daund Nagarparishad , Daund and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2019PIL/92/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the Court issued a mandamus to the Collector, Pune to re-decide the objections raised by the Irrigation Department regarding the declaration of a road on the canal embankment as a public road, emphasizing that the land belongs to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to the Collector, Pune to re-decide objections by the Irrigation Department, keeping in mind the land belongs to the State Government.

Vinayak Kundalik Mane Vs Daund Nagarparishad… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(23)-PIL-92-18.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2018

¶4

Vinayak Kundalik Mane ..Petitioner Versus

¶5

Daund Nagarparishad, Daund, Taluka Daund, District Pune and others ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. R. D. Motkari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 & 7.

¶7

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

¶8

DATE : 11^th JULY, 2019

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Having perused the averments in the Public Interest Litigation, we dispose of the same without notice to the Respondents requiring the 2^nd Respondent to properly apply his mind to the issue raised and not be guided by the misdirected representation made to him.

¶11

2] The Irrigation Department had to lay down a water canal in Khadakwasla Irrigation Division. The land was acquired by the State Government and placed at the disposal of the Irrigation Department. The canal was laid and as is to be found along all canals, on the embankment a road was laid.

¶12

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶13

(23)-PIL-92-18.doc .

¶14

3] A part of the canal passes through the territory of Daund Nagar Parishad. The Nagar Parishad issued a public notice on 27.06.2015 declaring it's intent to declare the road on the embankment passing through it's territory as a road. The Irrigation Department filed objections on 29.07.2015. The Nagar Parishad started treating the road as a public road. Under the guise of repairing the road obstructions were caused in the canal. A representation was made to the Collector, Pune and in the representation facts concerning the road on the embankment being sought to be declared a public road were pleaded and this misled the Collector to pass the impugned order dated 17^th July 2017 rejecting the representation on the ground that no objections were filed to the public notice issued by the Nagar Parishad declaring it's intent to notify the road as a public road within 30 days thereof.

¶15

4] The impugned order notes the fact that the public notice was issued by Nagar Parishad on 27.06.2015 and 29.07.2015, objections were filed by the Irrigation Department.

¶16

5] The issue required to be decided by the Collector was whether the road on the embankment could at all declare a public road because the road was on the embankment at the canal and the land comprising the embankment belongs to the Irrigation Department i.e. State Government.

¶17

6] We issue a mandamus to the Collector, Pune to re-decide

¶18

BGP. 2 o f 3

¶19

(23)-PIL-92-18.doc .

¶20

the objections filed by the Irrigation Department and while deciding the objections, the Collector would keep in mind that the road is on a land whereon embankment to a canal exists and the land belongs to the State Government but vested in it's State Irrigation Department.

¶21

N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

3 o f 3

¶23

BGP.

Vinayak Kundalik Mane v. Daund Nagarparishad , Daund and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Kundalik Mane v. Daund Nagarparishad , Daund 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

Association for Aiding Justice Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri.Chereshwar Mitra Mandal Anr. Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Satish Keshavrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mrs. Swati Sayaji Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Vishwash Pandurang Gadigaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Shivaji Bansode and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thorugh Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Satish Khot and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development and Ors.

Nisar Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jogeshwari Friends Co-Operative Housing Soc Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Zoru Darayus Bhathena Vs Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Gaurang Doshi and 2 Ors. Vs Scorg Iternational Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Haresh Tahikandas Chhetija and 2 Ors. Vs Vimla Kewal Kapoor and 3 Ors.

Haresh Tahikandas Chhetija and 2 Ors. Vs Vimla Kewal Kapoor and 3 Ors.

Union of India Vs Moter and General Sales Ltd.