Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Arjundas Sumomal Dhanwani And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12413 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12413 Bom
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2022

Bombay High Court
Arjundas Sumomal Dhanwani And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 30 November, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Anil Laxman Pansare
                                                                                      WP.7376.22
                                                 1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                 ...
                     WRIT PETITION NO.7376/2022

1)     Arjundas Sumomal Dhawanni and others                                        .. Petitioners
                        versus
1)     State of Maharashtra and others                                             ..Respondents
............................................................................................................
Mr.J.B.Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.A.Madiwale, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2
Mr. S.S.Sohoni, Advocate for Respondent no.3
.............................................................................................................
                 CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR & ANIL L.PANSARE,JJ.

DATED : 30th November, 2022.

P.C. :

The Petitioners seek a direction to be issued against the Municipal Corporation, Akola to grant lease in their favour in the light of the directions issued by the State Government on 26.08.2014. The Petitioners submit that they are in occupation of shop premises and have been paying occupation charges to the Municipal Corporation. However, treating them as encroachers they are sought to be displaced without issuing any notice. By the communication dated 24.11.2022, the Collector has directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Akola to take necessary steps with regard to such encroachment. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioners are being displaced.

2. Notice was issued on 29.11.2022 and the matter was kept today since the demolition activities were underway. Since it was the grievance of the Petitioners that they were not noticed before undertaking such demolition, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation sought instructions from the Municipal WP.7376.22

Commissioner as regards the provisions invoked for undertaking the removal of encroachment. On instructions, it is submitted that recourse to provisions of Section 230 and 231 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ('Act of 1949' in short) had been taken. It is further submitted that Section 231 of the Act of 1949 does not contemplate issuance of any prior notice to be issued to the concerned parties.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mohd. Sayed Mohd.Salim vs. Municipal Corporation , reported in 2018 SCC Online 2695 wherein it has been held that without following the principles of natural justice, such encroachment cannot be removed.

4. Prima facie, it is seen that present encroachment is not preceded by any notice to the Petitioners. The contention, as raised on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, that it was not necessary to issue any prior notice has been considered in the aforesaid decision. In Paragraph 13 it has been observed as under :

"13. The decision of this Court in Javid Khalid ( supra) has gone on to hold that for the demolition of illegal structures, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sopan Maruti Thopte vs. Pune Municipal Corporation has to be followed. This Court negated the submission of the Corporation that in lieu of Section 231 of the Act of 1949, it was not necessary to serve a notice to the Petitioners. The Division Bench of this Court held that the WP.7376.22

principles of natural justice are required to be followed and has relied upon its earlier decision dated 31st July 2015, where the rule of audi alteram partem has to be complied with before removal of encroachments on streets or footpaths following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Olda Tellis (supra)."

5. In that view of the matter, while granting time to the Respondents to file their reply, it is directed that unless the notice as contemplated by the aforesaid decision is given for invoking power u/s 231 of the Act of 1949, the Respondents shall not undertake the demolition in question. It would be open for the Respondents to give notice as contemplated and take further action in accordance with law.

Stand over in three weeks.

[ANIL L. PANSARE, J.] [A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.] sahare

Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE Location:

Signing Date:30.11.2022 18:35

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter