Sushma Sanjay Gaikwad v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader And ORS.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2023.07.27 11:24:24 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 408 OF 2019 Sushma Sanjay Gaikwad aged-44 years, occu: Household, An Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at : 162/13/B, Sachin Nivas Datta Colony, Shahunagar, Godali, District-Satara.

.. Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Bombay High Court, Mumbai.

2. The Chairman National Highway of Authority of India, having its office at G/5 and 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3. The Tahsildar Taluka-Wai, District-Satara.

4. The Collector of Satara having its office at: Near LIC building Powai Naka, Satara, District-Satara

5. The Sarpanch/Gram Vikas Adhkari Gram Panchayat : Pachwad, Taluka-Wai, District-Satara.

6. The Block Development Officer Varsha 1/3 7-wp-408-19.doc

Panchayat Samittee: Wai, Taluka: Wai, District-Satara.

7. Jaywant Jaising Pawar Aged: 51 Years Occupation: Service An Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at : C/o, Bharat Electronics Ltd., Devices Limited, E-I-30 I Block, Bhosari Industrial Area, Opp.: Rich Ice-cream Company, Pune.

8. Ajay Jaising Pawar aged 46 years, Occupation: Business An Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Pachwad, Taluka: Wai, District-Satara.

9. Vijay Jaising Pawar Aged 48 years, Occupation: Business an Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Pachwad, Taluka-Wai District: Satara ... Respondents  Mr. K.P. Shah for petitioner.

 Mr. S.S. Patwardhan a/w. Ms. Mrinal Shelar with Mr. Ajay Rajenimbalkar and Mr. Akshay Hardas for respondent nos. 7 to 9.

 Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar - AGP for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4.  CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ th JULY, 2023.

DATE : 26 ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J).

Varsha 2/3 7-wp-408-19.doc

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that Respondent nos. 8 and 9 have made some unauthorized construction in their land without seeking prior permission from the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the illegal and unauthorized constructions. However, as pointed out by learned counsel for respondent nos. 8 and 9, we find that there is already a construction permission granted by the Gram Panchayat, which is at page 210. If such is the case, we do not think that now the petitioner can be heard to say that there is some unauthorized construction made by respondent nos. 8 and 9 and that inspite of an application made to the authorities, the authorities are not taking any steps for removal of alleged unauthorized construction. 3.

We find no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed.

4.

Rule is discharged.

[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ] Varsha 3/3 7-wp-408-19.doc