Dismissed

Krishna Dadu Patil v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2023PIL/131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged the illegal transfer of government land reserved for a municipal school to private parties. The Acting Chief Justice noted that the transaction between the transferee and subsequent transferee had been regularized with deposit of required amounts, rendering further inquiry unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was disposed of leaving no costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Krishna Dadu Patil Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

k 1/2 42 pil 131.22 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.131 OF 2022

¶4

Krishna Dadu Patil V/S

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. ....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr. Chintan Y. Shah for Petitioner. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1 – TMC. Mr. Akshay S. Deshpande for Respondent No.2-Builder. Mr. Nivit Srivastava a/w Mr. Saurabh Kshirsagar i/b. Mr. Maniyar Srivastava Associates for Respondent No.3.

¶8

Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w. Mrs. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for StateRespondent Nos.4, 5 and 7.

¶9

… CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 9^TH FEBRUARY 2023.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 We have heard Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents.

¶12

2 Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the writ land was reserved for Municipal School, however, now the Respondents have changed the same. The Government land has been allotted to Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.2 without permission has transferred it to Respondent No.3. The same is illegal and against the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

¶13

1/2

¶14

k 2/2 42 pil 131.22 as.doc

¶15

3 According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the part of the

¶16

land is Adiwasi land, the same could not be transferred in view of the sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

¶17

4 It has been brought to the notice by the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3 that the lease deed executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of Respondent No.3 without the permission of the Collector has been regularized on certain terms and conditions. It has been stated by the learned Advocate for the Respondent that an amount of Rs.6,33,06,123/was directed to be deposited by the Tahasildar and the same has been deposited.

¶18

5 In view of that the transaction between Respondent No.2 and 3 need not be gone into. If the Petitioner is any grievance, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in that regard.

¶19

6 In view of the above, the PIL is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶21

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.11 10:29:43 +0530

¶23

2/2

Krishna Dadu Patil v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishna Dadu Patil v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through It Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Vilas Babanrao Tapkir and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretary Dept of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Sagar Ramdas Mavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Officer of Government Pleader and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Mohan Prabhakar Bhide vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Access to Hope the. Sanket K. Khadilkar vs Brihnmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (Best) and Ors.

Sunil Balajirao Dhondage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Samee Siddiqui vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ghorpade Namdeo Nana and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Yusuf Usman Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Makarand Rajadhyaksha and Anr. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr.

Chava Swarajya Samajik Sanstha Thr. Vice President Arif Subhan Shaikh Vs State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Higher and Technical Education Dept. and Ors.