Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Shankarlal Agrawal And ... vs Nagpur Metro Region Development ... on 29 April, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
21.wpst5976.2021.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 5976 OF 2021
(Sunil s/o Shankarlal Agrawal and anr. Vs. Nagpur Metro Region Development Authority,
Nagpur)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Girish Kunte, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE AND
A.G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2021.
Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Heard Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Shri Girish Kunte, learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. We find that the property in question has
been purchased by these two petitioners jointly along
with one Ranjeet Safelkar by the sale deed dated
20.05.2015. This Ranjeet Safelkar has been stated to be
a notorious criminal of Nagpur District and presently, as
informed by the respondent, various offences under
21.wpst5976.2021.odt
relevant sections of MCOC Act and also various
provisions of Indian Penal Code including Section 302
thereof have been registered against him. In these
crimes, the allegation is that Ranjeet Safelkar has
grabbed various parcels of lands from gullible and
unfortunate owners by employing coercive methods and
therefore, serious police action has been initiated for
demolishing the properties which have been alleged to
be obtained by using the proceeds of crime.
4. We further find that even though, later on,
there was an agreement mutually executed between
Sunil Shankarlal Agrawal and Ramlal Satyanarayan
Sharma on the one hand, who are the petitioners and
Ranjit Halke Safelkar on the other hand for partitioning
the property in question, on perusal of copy of the
mutual deed of understanding, it appears that it is only
a deed of understanding and agreement between the
parties but not a deed of partition, whereby the partition
has been effected actually. Besides, it is only a notarized
document.
5. In this petition the material facts relating to
purchase of the property by the petitioners initially in
conjunction and along with Ranjeet Safelkar have not
been mentioned and it has also not been mentioned that
21.wpst5976.2021.odt
serious police action has been and is being taken against
the properties which are believed to be the acquisitions
from out of proceeds of crimes by police. There is an
explanation given in this regard by the learned counsel.
He submits that there was hardly any time for filing the
petition as the demolition action had already been
started and that too without notice and, therefore, these
facts could not be mentioned in the petition. The
explanation cannot be accepted as these are the basic
facts, which ought to have been mentioned in the
petition and one need not say in so many words that no
petition can be filed sans basic facts. Then, it is also an
admitted fact that after receipt of notice dated
01.08.2018 issued under Section 53 of the Maharashtra
Town Planning Act, the building plan dated 05.03.2019
that was submitted by the petitioner for grant of
permission, came to be rejected on 04.02.2021 and
thereafter, the appeal, which could have been filed
under Section 47 of the said Act has not been so far
filed. The appeal could have been easily filed as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had already extended a period
of limitation by its latest order dated 27.04.2021.
6. There is also a copy of an undertaking dated
29.07.2019 given by petitioner No.1 to the respondent.
This copy has been filed on record by the learned
21.wpst5976.2021.odt
counsel for the respondent. It shows that the petitioner
No.1 had undertaken to himself demolish all the
structures constructed within one month, if any of them
were to be found illegal as per the sanctioned building
plan. In the present case, there is no sanctioned building
plan, rather the building permission itself has been
rejected and therefore, as per the undertaking dated
29.07.2019, the petitioner No.1 ought to have himself
demolished the entire construction. This material fact is
also absent from the petition.
7. In view of the facts stated above, we find that
this is not a fit case wherein this Court should make any
intervention by exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This is a case which has
a criminal colour requiring deeper investigation and also
other factors which presently do not favour the
petitioners, and we have already pointed them out.
8. At this stage, Shri Bhangde, learned counsel
for the petitioners placing strong reliance upon what is
held by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment
dated 18th September, 2003, rendered in Writ Petition
No.1201/2003, presses for interim relief. In this case,
the Division Bench has taken a view that in a case where
an appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra
21.wpst5976.2021.odt
Regional and Town Planning Act, no demolition be
undertaken. In the present case, no appeal so far has
been filed. It is true that the limitation period for filing
of the appeal has to be extended because of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the
appeal could also be filed even now by the petitioner.
But there is a vast difference between what is intended
to be done and what has been actually done. The view
of the Division Bench of this Court taken in Writ Petition
No.1201/2003 may perhaps come to the help of the
petitioners if they have already done their job of filing of
the appeal with promptitude. This is not the case here
and so, the said case would not help the petitioners.
9. In view of the above, the petition stands
dismissed. Needless to say that interim relief granted by
this Court on 28.04.2021 also stands vacated.
10. We also make it clear that the petitioners
would have all other alternate remedies for their taking
recourse to, if they wish to do so, and in case they do,
the authority hearing the matter, shall not be influenced
by observations made herein above.
JUDGE JUDGE
Prity
