Bombay High Court
The Akola Municipal Corporation, ... vs Dinesh S/O Murlidhar Lulla And ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp851.16+12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 851 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 856 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 857 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 858 OF 2016
WITH
ig WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 860 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 861 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 862 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 863 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 864 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 865 OF 2016
WRIT PETITION NO. 851/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.
(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:14:27 :::
Judgment 2 wp851.16+12.odt
1. Sau. Sheela W/o. Naresh Rathi,
Aged about 60 yrs., Occupation :
Business,
2. Sau. Nirmala W/o. Rajendra Rathi,
Aged 58 yrs., Occupation : Business,
Both R/o. Rajendra Apartment,
Gaurakshan Road, Akola, Tahsil and
District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
3. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri C.S.Kaptan, Sr. Adv. i/b.Shri M.G.Sarda & S.S.Sarda, Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.3.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 856/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.
(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Jaikisan Sundarlal Kalantri,
Aged 58 yrs., Occupation :
Business,
Judgment 3 wp851.16+12.odt
2. Laxminarayan Sunderlal Kalantri,
Aged about 62 yrs., Occupation : Business,
Both R/o. Ramnagar, Behind LRT
Commerce College, Akola, Tahsil and
District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
3. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
ig .... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri J.B.Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.3.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 857/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.
(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Atul S/o. Maganlal Patel,
Aged 58 yrs., Occupation :
Business, R/o. Radhakisan Plot,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
Judgment 4 wp851.16+12.odt
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri R.L.Khapre, Shri A.G.Lohiya & Shri S.M.Agrawal, Adv. for Resp. No. 1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 858/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.
(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Shri Mohanpalsingh Baldevsingh Mallhi,
Aged 42 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o. Maillin Niwas, Behind NCC Office,
Gandhi Nagar (East), Akola, Tahsil &
District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.S.Khedkar, adv. h/f. Shri S.Chinchbankar, Adv. for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
Judgment 5 wp851.16+12.odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 859/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola. (Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Dwarkadas S/o. Chandanmal Agrawal,
Aged 65 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o. Mahajani Plots, Tahsil &
District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A.G.Lohia and Shri S.M.Agrawal, Advs. for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 860/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.
(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
Judgment 6 wp851.16+12.odt
1. Sachin S/o. Subhash Zope,
Aged 32 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o. Amankha Plots, Tahsil &
District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri M.G.Sarda & Shri S.S.Sarda, Advs. for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 861/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola. (Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Shri Dinesh S/o. Murlidhar Lulla,
Aged 40 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Sindhi Camp,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri R.M.Tahaliyani, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G.P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
Judgment 7 wp851.16+12.odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 862/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola. (Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Kisanrao Wamanrao Ingole,
Aged 42 yrs., Occupation : Business,
through its P.O.A. Kisanrao Shivram
Borade, Aged 50 yrs., R/o. Shivajinagar,
Old City Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.A.Mohta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G.P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 863/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola. (Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
Judgment 8 wp851.16+12.odt
1. Yonus Khan S/o. Yousuf Khan,
Aged 45 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o. Dahihanda Bes, Old City, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.A.Mohta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G.P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 864/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Ramlal S/o. Shankarlal Kothari,
Aged 68 yrs., Occupation : Business,
through its P.O.A. Chetan Ramanlal
Kothari, R/o. Kothari Bhawan, Near
Jain Temple, Akola, Tahsil &
District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.S.Khedkar, adv. h/f. Shri S.Chinchbankar, Adv. for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
Judgment 9 wp851.16+12.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 865/2016.
1. The Akola Municipal Corporation
through its Commissioner, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola.
2. The Commissioner, Akola Municipal
Corporation, Akola, Tahsil & District
Akola.
(Ori. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 On R.A.)
ig .... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Shri Manoharbhai Laxmandas Sadhawani,
Aged 42 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o. Paki Kholi, Sindhi Camp, Akola,
Tahsil & District : Akola (Ori. Plff. on R.A.)
2. State of Maharashtra through Collector,
Akola, Tahsil & District : Akola
(Ori. Deft. No.3 on R.A.)
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.S.Khedkar, adv. h/f. Shri S.Chinchbankar, Adv. for Respondent No.1.
Ms H.N.Prabhu, A.G..P. For Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 13, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
Judgment 10 wp851.16+12.odt
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. These petitions are disposed of by common order as the facts
are similar and the same issue is involved.
4. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed civil suits contending that the
action of the Municipal Corporation in seeking to demolish the structures
occupied by the plaintiffs is illegal. The plaintiffs prayed for decree for
injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structures. As
according to the plaintiffs, the structures were damaged/ partly demolished,
the plaintiffs also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the Municipal
Corporation to repair the structures or in the alternative to permit the
plaintiffs to repair the structures. In the civil suits, the plaintiffs filed
applications praying for temporary injunction.
5. The learned trial Judge by the order dated 3rd August, 2015
rejected the applications praying for temporary injunction. The order passed
by the trial Court was challenged before the District Court in appeals. The
appeals are allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the
applications filed by the plaintiffs praying for temporary mandatory
injunction are allowed. The learned District Judge has directed the
Municipal Corporation to repair the structures. It is directed that if the
Judgment 11 wp851.16+12.odt
Municipal Corporation fails to repair the structures within eight weeks, the
plaintiffs are permitted to repair the structures and the cost of the repairs
are made subject to the judgment to be passed in the civil suits.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned District Judge have filed these petitions.
7.
According to the plaintiffs, their possession over the suit shops
is legal and authorized and they are in possession of the suit shops since
about 30 years.
8. The Municipal Corporation contends that the possession of the
plaintiffs over the suit shops is not legal. It is further contended by the
Municipal Corporation that the shops are required to be demolished to
enable the widening of road. Though exhaustive arguments are made on
behalf of the petitioners and the respondents on various points, in my view,
considering the facts of the case, interests of justice would be sub-served by
passing the following order :
i) The respondents are permitted to undertake repairs to their
respective structures at their cost and utilize the premises.
ii) The respondents will not be entitled to recover the cost of
repairs from the petitioners.
Judgment 12 wp851.16+12.odt
iii) This temporary injunction shall be operative till 21st
November, 2016.
iv) The trial Court shall dispose of the civil suit till 21st
November, 2016, if necessary by conducting the trial of the
suits on day to day basis.
v) If the civil suits are not disposed till 21st November, 2016,
the trial Court is granted liberty to consider the applications
filed by the plaintiffs afresh, taking into consideration the
conduct of the parties and the fact as to whether the parties
have co-operated for disposal of the civil suits or not.
The petitions are disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
9. At this stage, Shri A.M. Ghare, learned advocate for the
petitioners has requested that this order be kept in abeyance for four weeks
to enable the petitioners to take appropriate further steps. However,
considering the directions given, in my view, no prejudice would be caused to
the petitioners if the repairs are undertaken by the respondents.
Hence, the request made on behalf of the petitioners is rejected.
JUDGE
RRaut..
