Abhijeet Shriniwas Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6912 Bom

                                          {1}
                                                                       wp265417.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                   WRIT PETITION NO.  2654 OF 2017

 Abhijeet s/o Shriniwas Pawar
 Age 31 years, Occ. Service
 R/o R 27/74, N-9, Cidco
 Aurangabad                                                          Petitioner

          Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through the Secretary,
          Revenue and Forest Department
          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

 2.       The Collector,
          Collector Office,
          Aurangabad.

 3.       The Executive Engineer,
          P.W.D., Aurangabad.

 4.       Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
          Through The Commissioner, Aurangabad.                      Respondents


 Mr. N.J. Pahune Patil, advocate for petitioner.
 Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3.
 Mr. V.P. Latange, advocate for respondent no.4 .

  

                                   CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND
                                                 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,  JJ.

DATE : 07th September, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per R.M. Borde, J.)

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

{2} wp265417.odt

2 The petitioner has expressed an apprehension that his property would be taken in possession for the purposes of widening of the road without initiating acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation.

3 The apprehension expressed by the petitioner appears to be groundless. Respondent-authorities are not expected to dispossess the petitioner if he is entitled to occupy the property in question, without observing the procedure prescribed under law. This Court, while directing issuance of notice before admission to respondents, has issued interim direction not to dispossess the petitioner if he is legitimately occupying the property under dispute, without following due process of law.

4 This petition, as such, can be allowed in terms of the interim order dated 28.02.2017; and is accordingly allowed to such extent.

5 Rule is accordingly made absolute to the extent, as specified above. There shall be no order as to costs.

         SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI              R.M.BORDE
                    JUDGE                          JUDGE
 adb/wp265417