Advocates:
['MANTRI RAMESH R', 'BAGUL D S', '', 'G P', 'G P', 'AND', 'PATIL PRADIP R AND P A PISAL']

{1}

wp 7819.12.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7819 OF 2012

Shantilal Tarachand Bothra

Age: 60 years, occu: Agri & Social service,

R/o Main Road, Chopda,

Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner

Versus

1

The State of Maharashtra

through:

1.i

The Principal Secretary,

Urban Development Department

1.ii

The Principal Secretary,

Public Works Department.

1.iii

The Principal Secretary,

Revenue & Forest Department

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

2

The Collector, Jalgaon.

3

The Planning Authority &

Municipal Council, Chopda

tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon

4

The Assistant Director,

Town Planning Department,

Jalgaon.

Respondents

Mr.R.R. Mantri advocate for the petitioner

Mr.P.S. Patil Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4

Mr. P.R. Patil advocate for respondent No.3.

____________________________

{2}

wp 7819.12.odt

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ

Reserved on 12.1.2016

Pronounced on:2.8.2016

JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1

The petitioner is seeking directions to respondent No.3

Planning Authority, Municipal Council, Chopda, to remove the

unauthorised construction of the shopping centre along side

Ankaleshwar Burhanpur road in block No.1156 of Chopda, Dist.

Jalgaon within specified period. A direction is also sought against

the respondent to remove the unauthorised construction raised

over the aforesaid property and for restoration of the land to its

original position i.e. for agriculture use within specified time

frame.

2

The petitioner states that, an agricultural land can only be

used for the said purpose and cannot be used for any other

purpose, without securing prior permission of the Collector under

the provisions of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the use of the

land block No.1156 was prescribed for agriculture purpose.

{3}

wp 7819.12.odt

However, the Collector by order dated 6.8.2001 granted

permission for change of use for the purpose of cattle shed and

office only. It is the contention of the petitioner that, initially the

land to the southern side of high way was reserved under the

development plan as site No.87/1 for extension of college. If the

property is designated for a particular purpose, it can be used for

that purpose and for no other purpose. The petitioner contends

that, Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) has raised

construction of more than 100 shops on the property and the said

unauthorised construction needs to be removed. The petitioner

further contends that, though the planning authority issued a

notice on 15.5.2005, calling upon the APMC to remove the

unauthorised development, no steps have been taken. The

petitioner as such, seeks a direction against the planning authority

for removal of unauthorised construction.

3

In an affidavit-in-reply presented on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 and 4, it has been stated that, under the revised

development plan, the northern side portion of the land bearing

Gut No.1156 is prescribed for the use of APMC and southern

portion is reserved for site No.90-A for the purpose of extended

use of APMC. According to the concerned respondents, the non-

agriculture permission granted by the Collector is for the purpose

{4}