Dismissed

Mahesh S/O Vinayakrao Chendke and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC13 Jan 2023WP/1964/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging non-removal of encroachments on recreational open spaces. The court accepted the respondent's undertaking to remove encrochments by 30.06.2023 and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of upon respondent undertaking to remove encroachments by 30.06.2023. No costs.

Mahesh S/O Vinayakrao Chendke and Others Vs State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 19.wp.1964.21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1964/2021

¶4

Mahesh s/o. Vinayakrao Chendke and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶5

….…........................................................................................................................... . Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order or directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A. A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/State. Ms. R. P. Jog, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. A. S. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ.. DATED : 13.01.2023

¶8

. The petitioners who are residents of Mamta Co-operative Housing Society Limited at mouza Sonegaon have filed this writ petition praying that the Planning Authority – respondent No.2 – Nagpur Improvement Trust be directed to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachments on recreational open spaces which are three in number as indicated by the sanctioned layout plan. After notice was issued in the writ petition and time was granted to file reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 on instructions of Avinash Prakash Badge, Divisional Officer (West), Nagpur Improvement Trust submits that by 30.06.2023 the encroachments in the recreational open spaces referred to hereinabove would be removed in accordance with law. She submits that the respondent No.2 would be required to obtain police aid during the course of removal of the encroachment.

¶9

The statement made on behalf of respondent No.2 is accepted. It would be open for the respondent No.2

¶10

2 19.wp.1964.21.odt

¶11

to seek such permission from the concerned Authorities in accordance with law.

¶12

By accepting the statement made on behalf of respondent No.2 and directing it to comply with the same, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

( MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J.)

¶14

RGurnule

¶15

Digitally signed byRANJANA MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:13.01.2023 15:01

Mahesh S/O Vinayakrao Chendke and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh S/O Vinayakrao Chendke and Others v. State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai 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

M/S. Ashish Automobiles, Nagpur Thr. Its Partner and Others Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its Manager and Others

Apmc Samudrapur, Thr. Chaiman, Shri. Himmat Shamraoji Chatur and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Marketing and Textile Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Apmc Hinganghat Thr. Its Chairman, Sudhir Daulatchand Kothari and Another Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Marketing and Textile Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Divyani W/O Swapnil Saware and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Anr.

Vivek Parashram Pawar and 5 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Buldhana City Dist.Buldhana and Another

Haridas S/O. Domaji Gajbhiye Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others