Yogesh Pitamber Bhangale And ORS. v. The Ward Officer And ORS.
1 902-WP-15918-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15918 OF 2023 YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Yogesh Pitambar Bhangale and Ors.
... Petitioners
Versus
The Ward Officer and Ors.
... Respondents by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date:
2024.02.08 11:19:20 +0530 .......
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w Mr. R.M. Haridas i/b Mr. Pratik B. Rahade, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Archana Gaware a/w Mr. K.B. Dighe for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2- PCMC.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. .......
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 2 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.:
The Petitioner has sought following reliefs:
"a.
Issue and appropriate Writ/Order quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceeding initiated by the Respondents in respect of CTS Nos. 1246, 1253, 1255 and Survey No. 278/7;
b.
Issue and appropriate Writ/Order quashing and setting aside the notice dated
2 902-WP-15918-2023.doc 06/12/2023 (Exh-"G") issued by the Respondent No. 2 under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act for demolition of the suit property which are constructed on CTS Nos. 1246, 1253, 1255 and Survey No.
278/7."
2.
The grounds in the Petition are almost entirely based on the applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. has taken a view that Act of 2013 is not applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Town Planning Act. That being the position, there is no question of quashing the acquisition proceeding.
3.
The notice issued by Respondent No. 2 is for demolition of the property on the ground of the structure being unauthorised. The only contention raised before us is that the notice could not have been issued by the Municipal Corporation as land is vested in the State Government. State Government is not before us contending that no such directions by Municipal Corporation can be issued in respect of the structures on its land. We are informed informed that the Respondent-Corporation is proposing to construct the public school. Considering this position, we had put to learned counsel for Petitioners that if Petitioners are ready to
3 902-WP-15918-2023.doc vacate premises, some reasonable time to vacate could be considered.
4.
Petition was adjourned for Learned counsel for Petitioners to take instructions. The learned counsel on instructions taken, states that Petitioners are not ready to make such a statement. 5.
No case is made out to entertain the Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed.
(M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)