Ajay Atmaram More v. The Chief Executive Officer Of Nagar Panchayat Mangaon And ORS

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date:

2025.09.18 19:29:02 +0530 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11004 OF 2025 Ajay Atmaram More ....Petitioner

Versus

Chief Executive Officer & Ors.

....Respondents ---- Mr. Laxman Kalel i/b. Mr. Dipak Y. Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr. Amol Gharde a/w. Mr. Krishna Dhere i/b. Mr. Pramod Kathane for Respondent No.1.

Mr. S.C. Daswadikar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), as under :

(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or an appropriate Writ, direction or order and direct the Respondent Nos.1 not to take action against the petitioner without following due process of law.

(b) This hon'ble court quash and set aside notice dated 23/01/2025 issued by the respondent no.1 to petitioner.

(c) This hon'ble court direct the Chief executive officer don't stop petitioner work because permission was already granted to petitioner.

2.

After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and considering the loosely drafted Writ Petition that contains hardly any details, we find that the land on which the Petitioner is constructing a building is already the subject matter of civil litigation. Balu Dhondu Ubhare is said to be the owner of the land. A notarised, unregistered document has been created, based on which the Petitioner is carrying out the construction. Relying on such a document, the Corporation initially granted building permission, which has now been revoked by issuance of a notice. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner now submits that Balu Dhondu Ubhare passed away two months ago.

3.

In view of the above, and considering the seriously disputed aspects involved in this Petition, we do not find that the Petition deserves to be entertained.

4.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that he is aware of the statutory remedy available to challenge the revocation order. He pleads that the Petitioner is a philosopher and a Ph.D. holder, but not in employment, and therefore, costs should not be imposed.

5.

This Petition is dismissed. However, we are imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-, for wastage of the time of the Court, to be deposited in this Court on or before 30th September, 2025. This disposed off case shall be listed for recording compliance on 03rd October, 2025.

6.

If costs are not deposited, we will direct the concerned District Collector of Raigad District to recover the said amount from the Petitioner as arrears of land revenue and deposit the same in this Court.

7.

After the amount is deposited in this Court, by consent of the Respondents, the said amount be transferred to the account of the following establishment :

National Association for the Blind Account No : 3740000100008551 Bank : Punjab National Bank Branch : Worli Seaface IFSC Code : PUNB0374000 (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)