Baksharam Valiram Sarani & Others vs The Amravati Municipal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6914 Bom

                                        1                       WP-1764.02.odt         


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1764 OF 2002


              1.  Baksharam Valiram Sarani,
                   Aged about 45 years,

              2.  Harish s/o Baksharam Sarani,
                   Aged about 20 years,

              3.  Pratap s/o Ghamhanddas Chatwani,
                   Aged about 45 years,

              Shop-keepers of Vasantrao Naik Market,
              Amravati, Dist. Amravati.         ...                PETITIONERS


                               .. Versus ..


              1.  The Amravati Municipal Corporation,
                   Amravati.

              2.  The Assistant Director,
                   Town Planning, Amravati.        ...            RESPONDENTS


           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
            Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.N. Tapadia, 
                            Advocate for the Petitioners.
                  Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1.
           Mr. B.M. Lonare, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.2
           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                           
                                      CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & 
                                                      MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED : September 7, 2017.

2 WP-1764.02.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K. DESHPANDE, J.)

Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. S.N. Tapadia, Advocate for the petitioners,

Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.

B.M. Lonare, learned Addl.G.P. for respondent No.2.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the notice

dated 30.04.2002 issued by the respondents informing the

petitioners that the Collector, Amravati, has by an order

dated 24.04.2002, cancelled the leases granted to the

petitioners in respect of the strip of land out of Nazul Plot

No.61/1 Sheet No.68-B and 68-D of Amravati. The notice

state that the land is required for widening of road, and

therefore, the petitioners are called upon to demolish the

structure (shops) standing on the land in question.

3. Shri Bhangde, learned senior counsel invited our

attention to the averments in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the

petition, as also paragraph 3 of the rejoinder filed in this

petition, that the order dated 24.04.2002 passed by the

Collector is non-existent. Inviting our attention to the order

dated 24.04.2002 said to have been passed by the Collector

3 WP-1764.02.odt

it is urged that the said order is not in relation to the land

on which the shops of the petitioners are located. There is

no reply filed controverting such averments made in the

petition. Apart from this, Shri. Kasat, learned counsel, has

fairly conceded that the order passed by the Collector on

24.04.2002, is not in respect of the land on which the shops

of the petitioners are constructed.

4. In view of above, it is clearly established that the

notice dated 30.04.2002 is based upon an order of the

Collector which is not concerned with the shops occupied

by the petitioners. We are therefore left with no option to

allow this petition.

5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The

notice dated 30.04.2002 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2

to the petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.

6. Rule is made absolute in this term. No order as

to costs.

                                   JUDGE                         JUDGE

                     waghmare