Bharatiya Kala Prasarini Sabha, Through Secretary, Mr. Bhalchandra Mohiniraj Pathak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner And ANR

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5354 OF 2014 Bharatiya Kala Prasarini Sabha .. Petitioner Vs.

1. Pune Municipal Corporation and anr.

.. Respondents Ms. Pooja Thorat I/by Mr. M. V. Thorat for petitioner. Mr. R. S. Khandeparkar for respondent no.1.

Mr. Vishal L. Kolekar for respondent no.2.

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING CJ. & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

OCTOBER 08, 2018.

P.C.

1.

The petitioner prays for following reliefs:- (a) The Respondent No.1 Pune Municipal Council be directed to demolish/remove unauthorised constructed shed and compound of tin-sheets erected by Respondent No.2 on Petitioner's land bearing Gat No.27/2 situated at revenue village Sutarwadi, Tal- Hawali, Dist- Pune,w ithin Municipal Limits of Respondent No.1, and for that purpose appropriate Writ, order and/or direction be issued;

(b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petiiton, the Respondent No.1 Pune Municipal Council be directed to take all necessary steps and to adopt all majors to ensure that Respondent No.2 does not proceed with further erection of structures on Petiitoner's land bearing Gat No. 27/2 situated at revenue village Sutarwadi, TalHawali, Dist-Pune within Municipal Limits of Respondent No.1;

(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the Respondent No.1 Pune Municipal Council be directed to demolish/remove unauthorisedly constructed shed and compound of tin-sheets erected by Respondent No.2 on Petitioner's land bearing Gat No.27/2 situated at revenue village Sutarwadi, Tal-Hawali, Dist-Pune, within Municipal Limits of Respondent No.1;

(d) Interim/ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c) above, be granted.

(d) Such further and other order be made as this Hon'ble Court may deep fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The respondent no.2 had applied for regularization, which came to be rejected on 7th & 10th November, 2015. Respondent No.2 preferred appeal on 20/11/2015 to the State Government, which also came to be rejected on 25/9/2018.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 - Corporation submits that Corporation will take necessary steps after the protection granted to the respondent no.2 expires. The Corporation to take necessary steps expeditiously in accordance with law. 4.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, petition is disposed of.

G. S. KULKARNI J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Pravin Dasharath Pandit by Pravin Dasharath Pandit Date: 2018.10.08 15:58:43 +0530