IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Kamlakar s/o Ganpat Kote & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 3174 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14883 OF 2015 WITH CONTMPT PETITION NO. 45 of 2010
Decided On : 20-12-2017
Writ petition allowed. Appropriate and/or higher and/or superior authorities to take action in right earnest. Damages/loss to public property/exchequer and/or burden on the same be recovered, from the persons concerned then at the helm and responsible, by following a proper procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, inter alia, also seek directions to respondents no. 1 to 6 to take appropriate action including demolition of said construction.
Finding of the Court:
The building in question which has been constructed as commercial building indisputably appears to be between the control line and central line of highway and being prohibited cannot be allowed to stand not only for the reason that there have been affidavits that despite conversion of building being allowed now for residential purpose, the building is yet used for commercial purpose but also for, the very initiation of the proposal and construction of building and its execution even after realizing that the same is not recommended or approved and being casually allowed change of user dehors the law and rules, and in complete disregard to relevant rules, law, conditions, guidelines in that respect.
Issues: Whether the building in question which has been constructed as commercial building indisputably appears to be between the control line and central line of highway and being prohibited can be allowed to stand?
Ratio Decidendi: The building in question which has been constructed as commercial building indisputably appears to be between the control line and central line of highway and being prohibited cannot be allowed to stand not only for the reason that there have been affidavits that despite conversion of building being allowed now for residential purpose, the building is yet used for commercial purpose but also for, the very initiation of the proposal and construction of building and its execution even after realizing that the same is not recommended or approved and being casually allowed change of user dehors the law and rules, and in complete disregard to relevant rules, law, conditions, guidelines in that respect.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed. Appropriate and/or higher and/or superior authorities to take action in right earnest. Damages/loss to public property/exchequer and/or burden on the same be recovered, from the persons concerned then at the helm and responsible, by following a proper procedure.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition mainly concerns construction of shopping complex carried out over land bearing survey number 170/A2/1 abutting Nagar – Manmad highway seeking declaration that permission granted for development/construction of shopping complex over said land being within prohibited area of 37 meter of the centre of the highway is illegal and void-ab-initio and directions to respondents no. 1 to 6 to take appropriate action including demolition of said construction. The petitioners, inter alia, also seek directions to respondents to produce record in respect of permission for shopping complex over aforesaid land as also permissions for development/construction within prohibited area of 37 meter from Nagar – Manmad highway passing through Shirdi.
2. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 are residents of Shirdi town. Petitioner no. 1 was a councillor and petitioner no. 2's mother was also a councillor during relevant period. Respondent no. 1 is the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, respondent no. 2 is the Divisional Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Nasik, respondent no. 3 is the Collector, Ahmednagar, respondent no. 4 is the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Central Office, Pune, respondent no. 5 is the Assistant Director of Town Planning, respondent no. 6 is the Municipal Council, Shirdi, respondent no. 7 is builder – contractor, whereas National highway authority of India and Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation ('' MSRDC '') have been added as party respondents no. 8 and 9 respectively pursuant to amendments made in 2016 as per order dated 22-01-2016 passed in civil application no. 14883 of 2015.
3. While the petitioners pray for reliefs as aforesaid, it would be worthwhile to refer to events taking place giving rise to the writ petition as well as further events occurring during its pendency.
4. Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi under administration of the administrator had passed a resolution on 07-07-2001 to utilize land survey no. 170/A2/1 for erection of a shopping complex. It appears, on 16-07-2001, a communication had been sent by the Nagar Panchayat to the office of Town Planning, Ahmednagar seeking approval/recommendation to permission for construction with a condition to obtain no objection certificate. Said communication had been responded to on 01-08-2001 by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Ahmednagar, pointing out various deficiencies and further that the proposed construction is required to be at a distance of 37 meter from the central line of the highway and also that approval to plans cannot be recommended without obtaining no objection certificate, on the condition of obtaining no objection certificate, further referring to that the development over the entire area of land will have to be shown and upon removal of deficiencies as referred to in aforesaid communication, proposal for recommendation for approval can be considered.
5. A general body meeting of the Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi, had been convened on 21-06-2002 for discussion of subjects on the agenda, inter alia, at serial no. 11 about the construction of shopping complex over land survey number 170/A2/1 on build, operate and transfer (B.O.T.) basis. Accordingly, on 21-06-2002, a resolution had been passed deciding to construct shopping complex on said land on certain conditions therefor. Thereafter, tender notice had been issued in marathi daily 'Loksatta' on 07-09-2002. From the bids received, the one by respondent no. 7 – Vasturachana Engineers and Contractors had been accepted and an agreement for construction of commercial complex on survey number 170/A2/1 had been arrived at between Nagar Panchayat and Vasturachana Engineers and Contractors and had been executed in November, 2002. It is claimed pursuant ther
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others Vs. Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others
Debabrata Bandopadhyay and others vs. The State of West Bengal and another
Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another
Krishnan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu
Oswal Agro Mills vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another
Priya Gupta and another vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Ritesh Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Satyanarayan Dayma v. State of Maharashtra
Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed deceased, through legal representatives vs. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.