Disposed

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Aug 2023PIL/4/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning alleged encroachments, the Bombay Bench at Aurangabad deemed service of notices complete via newspaper publication and directed the Zilla Parishad CEO to monitor the removal of illegal structures within 150 days after giving stakeholders a chance to prove title.

What did the court decide?

Directs Respondent No.4 to remove encroachment within 150 days after giving stakeholders notice and opportunity to show title; directs monitoring by Respondent No.3.

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

19 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2022

¶4

VALMIK RAJARAM GARUDKAR VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr.H.F.Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.D.R.Kale, GP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Ashraf Patel, Advocate for Respondent No.8.

¶7

Mr.A.D.Aghav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Mr.Anand Raka h/f Ms.Medha P. Patel, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 9 to 16, 18 to 34, 36 to 61, 63 to 65, 67 to 73, 75 to 92, 95, 97, 98, 100 to 106, 108, 114, 117, 118, 121, 122, 126,129, 130, 132, 137, 140, 141, 145, 148, 150, 153, 154, 163 to 165, 168, 170 to 177, 179 to 189, 191 to 198.

¶8

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.)

¶9

DATE : AUGUST 17, 2023

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Pursuant to our order dated 19.07.2023, the Petitioner has

¶12

got the notice published in "Daily Sakal", Ahmednagar Edition, dated 07.08.2022. Pursuant thereto, most of the alleged encroachers have caused an appearance. Nevertheless, considering that the public notice is published in the newspaper in order to serve Respondent Nos. 9 to 196, all are deemed to have been served. Office to accept the khs/August 2023/4

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

Vakalatnama of Ms.Medha Patel, learned Advocate.

¶15

Issue is as regards alleged encroachment by Respondent Nos. 9 to 196. The Sarpanch and the Gramsevak are alleged to have inducted these persons and have thereby, purportedly, permitted encroachment. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Deshmukh, representing Respondent No.8 Gramsevak vehemently submits that the Gramsevak is not concerned with this encroachment. He would prove his bona-fides by taking steps for ensuring that the encroachments are removed.

¶16

The learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, the Authorities of the Zilla Parishad, submits that the responsibility may be cast upon Respondent No.4 to initiate appropriate steps for ensuring the removal of encroachment. The CEO of the Zilla Parishad would monitor the said exercise.

¶17

In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with the following directions :-

¶18

[a] Respondent No.4 shall initiate steps as are permissible in Law, for

¶19

khs/August 2023/4

¶20

¶21

the removal of encroachment.

¶22

[b] All the persons alleged to be the encroachers, shall be issued with appropriate notices, as is prescribed in Law.

¶23

[c] Respondent No.3 would personally monitor the abovesaid exercise and respondent No.4 would be bound to report to Respondent No.3, on weekly basis with regard to the progress made.

¶24

[d] All the stake holders and concerned persons would be granted adequate opportunity of representation and would be permitted to produce their title documents to indicate their ownership or their legally sustainable interest, over the concerned properties.

¶25

[e] The above stated exercise would be completed within a period of 150 days.

¶26

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on instructions that as the Petitioner has deposited Rs.75,000/- in this Court, Rs.10,000/- may be donated to the Advocate Associations' Bar Library, High Court, Aurangabad Bench and the remaining amount, would be withdrawn by the Petitioner alongwith accrued interest, if any. The statement is recorded and the Registry shall transmit the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Advocate Associations' Bar Library, High

¶27

khs/August 2023/4

¶28

Court, Aurangabad. The Petitioner would withdraw the remainder amount inclusive of accrued interest, under identification by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶29

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶30

khs/August 2023/4

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantanu Vilas Nandgude Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kiran Dattatraya Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Public Works Dept. Thru Gp High Court and Ors.

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Mukram Jaan Gul Mohd Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yogesh Remchandra Pathre and Others Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Ujwal Govind Keskar and Anr. Vs State of Maharastra and Ors.

Ranjeet Sampatrao Raskar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Chief Secretary Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Grampanchayat Pethwadaj through Its Sarpanch Anita Datta Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Aarati Kakasaheb Dhondare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Vimalbai Bhausaheb Dhondare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Govind Dadarao Pawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Maroti Bala Pawar Died through Lrs Kadubal Alias Kishor Maroti Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Sandesh Vikram Hange Vs the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Others