Deepak Chimniram Heda vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 393 Bom

       wp4308.15                                                                      1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                             
                          WRIT PETITION  NO.  4308  OF  2015

      Deepak Chimniram Heda,




                                                     
      aged 50 years, occupation - 
      Business, r/o c/o Harikisan 
      Vithaldasji Chandak,
      Padmavati Chowk, Arvi City,




                                                    
      Tq. Arvi, District - Wardha.                     ...   PETITIONER

                                   Versus




                                           
      1. The State of Maharashtra
         through the Secretary, Urban
                             
         Development Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                            
      2. The Director of Town Planning,
         State of Maharashtra, Central
         Building, Pune-1.

      3. Chief Officer, Municipal Council (M.C.)
      


         / Nagar Parishad, Arvi, Tq. Arvi,
   



         District - Wardha.

      4. Town Planner, Town Planning Office,
         Wardha, Ambedkar Chowk, Sawangi





         Road, Near Stadium, Wardha.

      5. The Collector, Wardha, Tq. & District
         Wardha.                                       ...   RESPONDENTS





      Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Ms. M.S. Naik, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
      Shri M.D. Lakhey, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
                        .....

                                        CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                   P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

MARCH 07, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of Shri Mundhada, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. Naik, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5

and Shri Lakhey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The parties state that the matter is governed by the

judgment delivered today in Writ Petition No. 4307 of 2015. Only

survey numbers on which the reservation has been fastened, are

different.

3. Hence, for the reasons recorded therein, we make the

rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. Writ

Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

               JUDGE                                                          JUDGE





                                                     ******

      *GS.