Dismissed

Sangli Zilla Zopadpatti Punarvasan Samiti Sangli Thr Its President v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2023PIL/49/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to form a committee to regularize government land encroachments. The court dismissed the PIL, stating it cannot direct the government to regularize encroachments and reserved policy for individual consideration.

What did the court decide?

None directed. The PIL is disposed of with a ruling that the court cannot order regularization.

Sangli Zilla Zopadpatti Punarvasan Samiti Sangli Thr Its… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2-PIL.49.2023

¶2

jvs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

SALUNKE J V

¶5

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.03.10 11:39:18 +0530

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 49 OF 2023

¶7

Sangli Zilla Zopadpatti Punarvasan } Samiti, Sangli } Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents

¶8

Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATE: MARCH 9, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. The petitioner seeks direction against the respondents to form a committee under the guidance of the Commissioner of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation for regularization of the encroachment made by the slum dwellers on different slum areas (Government land) situated in Sangli city. Further directions are sought to regularize the encroachment made by the slum dwellers in different slum areas situated within the vicinity of Sangli City.

¶14

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶15

3. The public interest litigation is filed by Sangli Zilla Zopadpatti Punarvasan Samiti, Sangli. We cannot direct the planning authority and/or the Government to regularize the encroachment. If there is a policy in place for regularization, then, individual applications will have to be made by those

¶16

¶17

2-PIL.49.2023

¶18

persons. The pros and cons will have to be considered. Evidence will have to be brought on record qua the manner of possession so also the period of possession and if the policy exists of the Government, then only further steps can be undertaken.

¶19

4. In case such encroachers have filed applications and/or file such applications, it is for the authority to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with the policy.

¶20

5. With the aforesaid observations, the public interest litigation is disposed of.

¶21

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶22

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

Sangli Zilla Zopadpatti Punarvasan Samiti Sangli Thr Its President v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangli Zilla Zopadpatti Punarvasan Samiti Sangli Thr Its President v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept 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

Owala Gavthan Gramshtan Sangharsh Samitee through Mr. Harichandra Ramu Dokphode Vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

K.P.Purushothaman Nair vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Shri. Prasad Balkrishna Gawade vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Rural Development and Ors.

Shri Anil Balaram Kene Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Ministry for Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Naee Roshni Social Organisation Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authoirty and Anr.

M/S. Hospitech Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Warule Sandip Jagannath and Ors. Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Finance Dept. and Ors.

Vinayak Pandharinath Idate Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Minister of Public Works Dept. and Ors.

Ashok H Tambe Vs the Bombay Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Prashant Kaushik Vs Staff Selection Commission (Wr)

F. a. Enterprises and Ors. Vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation, Water Resources Dept and Ors.