Remanded

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Shri Prasad S/O Keshavrao Pimpale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC10 Feb 2021PIL/80/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that once open spaces are sanctioned in a layout plan, the Planning Authority (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) is legally bound to ensure they remain open. The court directed the Authority to take necessary steps within six weeks to preserve these spaces.

What did the court decide?

Directed Nagpur Municipal Corporation to ensure open spaces remain open and take necessary steps within six weeks.

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti, Nagpur Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1002pil80.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.80 OF 2017

¶6

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Shri U.R. Phasate, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Ms. Shiba Thakur, Advocate h/f Shri S.M. Ukey, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Shri G.A. Kunte, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶12

Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

Shri S.A. Radke, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶14

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2021

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

This Public Interest Litigation is filed making a limited grievance that in the final layout plan in respect of Khasra Nos.62/1, 68/1, 67/2 and 69/1 of Mouza Manewada, Nagpur,

¶17

2 1002pil80.17

¶18

identity of which can be established by a tentative layout plan annexed at Annexure 4-A to the petition, there are four open spaces shown, but the Respondents have failed to maintain them as open spaces and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have encroached upon the same.

¶19

Shri Kunte, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, states that a tentative layout plan has been confirmed and four open spaces as shown in the map at Annexure 4-A are continued to be shown as open spaces. It is submitted that the applications made for regularization in respect of the encroachments have been rejected by the Planning Authority and the said fact is placed on record by way of affidavit dated 26/6/2019.

¶20

Shri Phasate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has relied upon Section 7 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001 to contend that once an application for regularization is rejected, the Planning Authority must take action for removal of encroachments.

¶21

Shri Kunte, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, and Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, submit that there are no such encroachments and the action of rejection of the applications for regularization is under challenge.

¶22

¶23

1002pil80.17

¶24

Be that as it may, once the Planning Authority, i.e. Nagpur Improvement Trust has confirmed that the layout plan has been sanctioned with four compulsory open spaces, it is the duty of the Planning Authority to ensure that they remain open spaces unless there is a change in the said layout.

¶25

We dispose of this Public Interest Litigation placing responsibility on the present Planning Authority, i.e. Nagpur Municipal Corporation to ensure that the four open spaces, which are earmarked as open spaces in the layout plan, remain as open spaces and necessary steps for the said purpose be taken within a period of six weeks, if not already taken. As regards individual rights of Respondent No.4 as may be available in law, the same are kept open.

¶26

7) Petition stands disposed of.

¶27

In view of the fact that this Public Interest Litigation has been entertained, the amount of rupees fifty thousand deposited by the Petitioner with the Registry of this Court, be refunded to the Petitioner.

¶28

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶29

khj

¶30

Digitally signed Kamal by Kamal Jeswani Date: 2021.02.17 Jeswani 11:06:08 +0530

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Shri Prasad S/O Keshavrao Pimpale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Shri Prasad S/O Keshavrao Pimpale v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai 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

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch, Thr. President, Dr. Sachin Sureshreao Pawade Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Deptt. of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay S/O Omprakash Varma and Others Vs National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi through Chairman and Others

Hiralal Magan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prerna Apang Seva Sanghatna through Its President L K Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hadapsar Industrial Estate Environmental Group Vs the Pune Cantonment Board and Ors.

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Dept.) and Others

Usha Vijay Tembhurne Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, Mumbai and Another

Mr. Rajendra S/O. Premrao Hedau Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Himmatrao S/O. Tulshiramji Aathawale and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, the Dept. of Village Development, Mumbai and Others

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Ors.

Sudhakar S/O Ramrao Mohod and Others Vs the Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai and Others

M/S M.J. Solanki, Nagpur through Authorised Person/Manager, Shri. Prashant S/O Diliprao Admane Vs State of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, Mumbai through Secretary and Others