Jewish Cemetjewish Heritage Trust Thr Its Chief Trusteeery Trust Panvel vs State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Abhay S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Harris Khan, Daniel Pezarkar, Venkatesh Bhandari, Rajashi P. and Esha Malik i/by Raymond Gadkar for petitioner.

¶10

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2025.06.16 19:32:14 +0530

¶11

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr. Rajesh A. Tekale for respondent no.2.

¶13

Mr. Jitendra Jagtap for respondent no.4 – MPCB.

¶14

Ms. Shital Londhe for respondent no.5.

¶15

Mr. Raviraj S. Gamare for respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶16

Mr. Balraj Y. Bhandere a/w Premanand K. Torane for respondent no.8.

¶17

Mr. Prashant Rathod for applicant in IAST/34684 of 2024.

¶18

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: 16^th JUNE, 2025

¶19

ORAL ORDER [Per Chief Justice]:

¶20

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

¶21

2. The petitioner is a Trust formed by advocates of Jewish Community with an object to manage and protect Jewish

¶22

1

¶23

9-PIL-211-2023.doc

¶24

Heritage sites and properties which are entrusted for the use and benefit of Jewish population in India.

¶25

3. The contention of the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation is that plot of land bearing No. 217 is designated as cremation ground, whereas an adjoining plot, namely, land bearing plot no. 209, on which holy Israel tank is situated and the adjoining plots are reserved for beautification of Israel tank for the use and benefit of Jewish community in Panvel.

¶26

4. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in this PIL is that on the land bearing Plot Nos.217 and 210, which is designated as above, certain encroachments have been made by respondent nos. 5 to 7 and by various other persons by raising construction of hutments. It is also pleaded in the PIL that respondent nos.5 to 7 are carrying out construction on the land in their occupation. It is averred in the PIL that Israel tank is used for washing the bodies prior to their cremation. The petitioner approached the respondentsauthorities by submitting a representation on 9^th May, 2023. However, the aforesaid representation has failed to evoke any response. Hence, this PIL.

¶27

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panvel Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) is under statutory obligation for removal of encroachment and to keep the water bodies clean. However, despite grievance made in this regard, the Corporation has failed to perform its statutory duties. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the PIL, the Corporation has identified the encroachers and has issued notices to them. However, action is not being taken against the encroachers merely on

¶28

2

¶29

9-PIL-211-2023.doc

¶30

the ground that this PIL is pending. It is, therefore, contended that the PIL be disposed of by issuing suitable directions.

¶31

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 submits that land bearing Plot No. 210 is recorded in the name of Subhanshah Dargah and the respondents are raising construction on the land bearing Plot No.210 after obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner and Waqf Board in accordance with law.

¶32

7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Undoubtedly, under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the Corporation is under a statutory obligation to remove encroachment and to keep the water bodies clean. The issue whether the construction is being raised on land bearing Plot No.210 or land bearing Plot No.217 designated as cremation ground is a question of fact which cannot be determined in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

8. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to issue following directions: -

¶34

(a) The Ward Officer, “D” Ward, Panvel Municipal Corporation, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to respondent nos.6 and 7 and all other persons who may be in occupation of the land bearing Plot Nos. 217 and 210.

¶35

3

¶36

9-PIL-211-2023.doc

¶37

(b) In case, any person who is found to be in unauthorized occupation or has raised any illegal construction on the land bearing Plot Nos.217 and 210, the Ward Officer, “D” Ward, Panvel Municipal Corporation, shall initiate an action for removal of the encroachment/demolition of the unauthorized construction in accordance with law.

¶38

(c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶39

(d) In case the officers of the Panvel Municipal Corporation requires police assistance, they shall make an application to the concerned police station. Thereupon the necessary police assistance shall be provided to them by the concerned police station.

¶40

(e) Needless to state that any person aggrieved by the order directing removal of encroachment or demolition of unauthorized construction, shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him/it in accordance with law.

¶41

(f) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

¶42

9. Accordingly, the PIL is disposed of.

¶43

10. Interim Applications shall also stand disposed of.

¶44

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶45

4

Jewish Cemetjewish Heritage Trust Thr Its Chief Trusteeery Trust Panvel v. State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jewish Cemetjewish Heritage Trust Thr Its Chief Trusteeery Trust Panvel v. State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhukar Karu Kadlak vs Grievance Redressal Committee - Mumbai Suburbs

The Chairman/ Secretary, Jai Mangal Moorti Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies , S Ward and Ors.

Nitin Madhusudan Raut vs Smt. Sharayu Madhusudan Raut and Ors.

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Executive Engineer Urmod Dam Division vs Tatyaba Baburao Bhosale and Ors.

Executive Engineer, Urmodi Dam Division, Satara vs Sahebrao Laxman Bhosale Decd Thru Lhrs and Anr.