Disposed

Kiran Kashinath Avhad v. the State of through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC18 Aug 2023WP/1366/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved encroachment of government land by the petitioner. Both parties admitted encroachment and undertook removal cooperation with cost sharing within seven days, leading to the petition's disposal.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of based on the undertaking of both parties to remove encroachments and share costs.

Kiran Kashinath Avhad Vs the State of through Its Principal Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

904 wp 1366.23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

904 WRIT PETITION NO.1366 OF 2023

¶5

KIRAN KASHINATH AVHAD

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Thombre S.S.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for R/2 : Mr. V.S. Bedre
Advocate for R/3 : Mr. S.G. Jadhavar

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶10

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE :18th August, 2023

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1. This is one case which surprises us.

¶13

2. The Petitioner has filed this Petition to indicate that Respondent

¶14

No.3 has committed an encroachment on government land while constructing

¶15

his bungalow. Photographs are placed on record. Respondent No.3 is before

¶16

us who plainly submits that not only Respondent No.3 has encroached, the
Petitioner has also encroached. In response Petitioner fairly states before us

¶17

that he has also encroached and the Corporation is at liberty to remove the

¶18

encroachment under full cooperation of the Petitioner, including payment of
charges. Respondent No.3 also submits that the Corporation may remove his

¶19

( 2 ) 904 wp 1366.23

¶20

entire encroachment portion and he would peacefully cooperate and pay for
the expenditure of removal of encroachment incurred by the Corporation.

¶21

3.The learned advocate for the Corporation submits that it is the
duty of the Corporation to remove such encroachments. However, he has no
explanation to offer as to how the encroachment went unnoticed until today.
Nevertheless, he expresses that the Corporation would be removing the
encroachment within seven days. Both, the Petitioner as well as the Respondent
No.3, agree that they would wholeheartedly cooperate with the Corporation for
the removal of such encroachment within seven days and make the payment
towards expenditure incurred by the Corporation in proportion to their shares.

¶22

4.In view of the above statements which are made before the Court,
this petition is disposed off.

¶23

5.We make it clear that neither the Petitioner nor Respondent No.3,
would resile from their statements made and no further challenge or grievance
would be entertained. Needless to state, the encroachment made by the
Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 would be removed on or before
30.08.2023.

¶24

 [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]

¶25

mub

Kiran Kashinath Avhad v. the State of through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Kashinath Avhad v. the State of through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Valmik Rajaram Garudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra 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

Baburao Nagorao Gadade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maya Gopal Sable Vs Gopal Haridas Sable

Jaiprakash Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Thr Its Branch Manager and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others