Vaishali W/O Vivek Bhaskarwar vs The Municipal Council , Yavatmal ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2796 Bom

                                            1                                           wp5591.14




                                                                                     
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                             
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.5591 OF 2014




                                                            
     Vaishali w/o Vivek Bhaskarwar, 
     Aged about 38 years, 
     Occupation - Agricultural,  




                                               
     Resident of Balaji Nagar, Chanayak 
     Lawn, Digras, District Yavatmal.
                              ig                                      ....       PETITIONER


                        VERSUS
                            
     The Municipal Council,
     Digras, through its Chief Executive 
      

     Officer, Tahsil - Digras, District -
     Yavatmal.                                                        ....       RESPONDENT
   



     ______________________________________________________________
                Shri B.B. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner, 





              Shri Pravin Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent.
      ______________________________________________________________


                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 13 JUNE, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri B.B. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner-

plaintiff and Shri Pravin Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent-

defendant.

2 wp5591.14

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the

subordinate Courts rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of

temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from demolishing the

structure by acting as per the notice dated 29-07-2013.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out

the specific averment in the plaint that the lawn and construction of

the plaintiff is as per the sanctioned layout and as per the plan

sanctioned by the respondent on 12-05-2006.

5. The subordinate Courts have rejected the claim on the

ground that the civil suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in

view of the bar created by Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning Act, 1966

6. The learned Advocate for the respondent opposes the

petition on the ground that the construction of the petitioner is illegal

and because of the illegal construction, the flow of water through the

nullah is affected and creates a flood like situation and is hazardous to

3 wp5591.14

public health.

7. By the order dated 14-10-2014, this Court directed

issuance of notice and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The

interim order continues till today. It goes unexplained as to why the

respondent has not taken any steps to get the interim order vacated in

2015 rainy season. Considering these aspects and the pleadings of the

petitioner in the plaint that the lawn and construction of the petitioner

is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, in my view, the interests of

justice would be sub-served by the following order:

(i) The trial Court shall dispose the civil suit till 16-01-2017.

(ii) The interim order granted by this Court on 14-10-2014 shall

continue till 16-01-2017.

(iii) The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar