Disposed

Maruti Pundlik Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Nov 2021PIL/28/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding encroachments, the court directed authorities to decide regularization applications within four months and ordered the refund of deposited costs to the petitioner and the High Court Bar Association.

What did the court decide?

Directions given to authorities to decide regularization applications within four months; Rs. 10,000/- remitted to High Court Bar Association Aurangabad and Rs. 15,000/- allowed to be withdrawn by pet

Maruti Pundlik Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(1)

¶2

72-PIL-28-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.28 OF 2018

¶5

MARUTI PUNDLIK PAWAR

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Shrikrashna B. Solanke, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. A. B. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
Mr. A. V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.7 to 13.

¶11

 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶12

 DATED : 15th NOVEMBER, 2021.

¶13

PER COURT:-

¶14

1.We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for grampanchayat,
learned A.G.P. and learned counsel for alleged
encroachers.

¶15

2.There is no dispute that respondent nos.7
to 13 are the encroachers according to the
petitioner. These respondent nos.7 to 13 are
encroachers on the gaonthan land, whereas according
to Mr. Patil, learned counsel, respondent nos.7 to
13 are encroachers on the Government land. They
are entitled for regularization of their
encroachments as per the policy of the Government

¶16

(2) 72-PIL-28-2018

¶17

dated 16.02.2018. The respondent nos.7 to 13 have
given applications for regularization of their
encroachments in the year 2018. The same are not
yet decided.

¶18

3.According to the learned counsel for
grampanchayat, the grampanchayat has asked the TILR
to demarcate the gaonthan land, so that further
action can be taken. The grampanchayat has also
issued notices to the encroachers.

¶19

4.The learned A.G.P. submits that, the
grampanchayat has been given notices to remove the
encroachments or else the action would be taken
against the members of the grampanchayat under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat
Act, 1958, more particularly under Section 53(2-A).

¶20

5.There cannot be regularization of an
encroachments on roads.

¶21

6.There appears to be disputed as to whether
encroachments are on the Government land or on
gaonthan land. None the less fact remains that,
the respondent nos.7 to 13 are encroachers.
Whether these respondent nos.7 to 13 are entitled
for regularization of their encroachments has to be
decided by the authorities concerned and as
contemplated under the policy of the Government.
It is submitted that the applications are already
given by respondent nos.7 to 13 for regularization

¶22

(3) 72-PIL-28-2018

¶23

of their encroachments with the authorities. The
authorities shall take decision on the applications
of these respondent nos.7 to 13 for regularization
in accordance with policy in force and law,
preferably within a period of four (04) months from
today. Depending upon the decision taken on
applications of respondent nos.7 to 13 for
regularization, the further steps shall be taken by
the authorities immediately.

¶24

7.With these observations and directions,
Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. No
costs.

¶25

8.The petitioner seeks refund of the amount
deposited under the orders of this Court.

¶26

9.The learned counsel on instructions
submits that, from the amount of Rs.25,000/-,
Rs.10,000/- be paid to the High Court Bar
Association Aurangabad and Rs.15,000/- be allowed
to be withdrawn by the petitioner.

¶27

10.In view of that, amount of Rs.10,000/- be
remitted to the High Court Bar Association
Aurangabad and remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- is
allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner.

¶28

(R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Devendra/November-2021

Maruti Pundlik Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Pundlik Pawar 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

Valmik Pandharinath Wakcharue and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rail Parishad Nx Thou Its President Gurmeet Singh Rawal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Gajanan Mitkari and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Reji Abraham Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Asif Shaukat Qureshi vs Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Another

Janardan Gulabrao Moon vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Maharashtra Apang Karmachari Mahasangh through Member Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sattyendra Muley and Anr. Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary Health Ministry and

Sadashiv Venkatrao Mantri and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Maruti Hanmanta Khede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Valmik Pandharinath Wakcharue and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishakha Vijay Chandange through Tara Vijay Chandange Mathpati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajit Dinkar Patil Vs the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Others

Eakurake Ramdas Bhanudas and Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others