Dismissed

Shri Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2020PIL/106/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a PIL regarding encroachment on community land. After reviewing affidavits stating the Gram Sabha resolved to hand over the plot and that coverage was permissible, the court held the PIL's purpose was served and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The PIL is disposed of as the purpose has been served by the undertaking given.

Shri Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate and Ors. Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

6-PIL.106.2013.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 106 OF 2013

¶4

Shri. Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate } and Anr. } Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra } and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr.Rahul S. Kate for the petitioner. Mr.V.M.Mali-AGP for State. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for respondent no.2.

¶6

Mr.Abhijit P. Kulkarni for respondent no.4.

¶7

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATED :- JANUARY 22, 2020

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

The petitioners say that the second respondent has encroached upon and taken over a plot of land, namely, Gat Nos.185-186 for its own purpose.

¶10

The argument is that this was an open space and earmarked for community use. That could not have been taken over in the manner done by the second respondent.

¶11

An affidavit has been affirmed on 21^st June, 2019 by the Chief Officer of the fourth respondent-Baramati Municipal Council. In this affidavit, he has pointed out that now the Village Panchayat

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

J.V.SALUNKE,PS

¶14

6-PIL.106.2013.doc

¶15

Jalochi (the erstwhile village within whose limits the subject land is situated) has been included within the limits of Baramati Municipal Council. After the necessary area and record correction, the Chief Officer informs that the Gram Sabha of the third respondent (the village panchayat) had unanimously resolved to handover this plot to the second respondent. That is a philanthropic and charitable institution. Thereafter, there was an agreement with the panchayat and the successor council has done nothing, but to honour the commitment in terms of this agreement. The commitment has resulted in the Municipal Council earning for the public a substantial portion of land. The total area is 7755.08 square meters and the construction is only on 762.59 square meters. That is a permissible coverage. The rest of the plot of land is open to sky and is available for use by the residents of the area and the Municipal Council.

¶16

Once all these statements are made on oath and accepted as undertakings given to this court, the PIL has served its purpose. The PIL has ensured that the entire space meant for use by the public or community at large is not taken over. It is, therefore, disposed of.

¶17

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶18

Page 2 of 2

¶19

J.V.SALUNKE,PS

Shri Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dadasaheb Sukhdev Kate and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gazi S a Ansari Vs the Union of India and Others

Balasaheb Shivaji Ralebhat Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tanaji Bramhadeo Kalel Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Ors.

Sagar Kundalik Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Department of Urban Development Mumbai and Others

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sanjay Digambar Balgude Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kalyan Vasantrao Salunke Vs the Principal Secretary Water Resources Department and Others

Rajwant Kaur Vs Union of India and Anr.

Salman Nafis a Qureshi Vs the Principal of Mmk College and 2 Ors.

Mr. Shriniwas Gajanan Marathe Vs Shri. Manish Dalvi, Chairperson

Deepak Shashidhar Golappanvar Vs Mrs. Meenakshi Amit Jain and Ors.

Ritu Ruhil Vs the Central Board of Film Certification and 2 Ors.

S. G. Barnes Vs the Commissioner of Bmc 5 Ors.