Bombay High Court
Nandu Antaram Rajput vs Municipal Corporation Of City Of Pune, ... on 21 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 524
Author: G.S.Patel
Bench: S. C. Dharmadhikari, G.S.Patel
911-WP-9102-13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9102 OF 2013
Nandu Antaram Rajput ... Petitioner
Vs
Municipal Corporation for City of
Pune and Anr. ... Respondents
Mr.Sagar Kursija i/b Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for
the Petitioner.
Mr.Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Anand Nandu
for Respondent No.1.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S.PATEL, JJ.
DATE :- JUNE 21, 2019 P.C. :-
1. In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the notice of 10th July, 2013 issued under Section 260(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
2. It is stated that the petitioner had, as far as back on 6th March, 2009 indicated that the building, namely, "Arjun Heights", Survey No.18/2/2/2/1, Warje, Pune is affected by road widening.
3. It is stated that in this building, on the ground floor, there are four shops. There is office on the first floor and two tenements on the second and third floor of 300 square feet each. Page 1 of 4
M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 14:00:56 ::: 911-WP-9102-13.doc
4. The petitioner has thanked the Municipal Corporation for undertaking a public project. Though he says that his entire property is affected by road widening, he has requested for alternate premises.
5. It appears that the Pune Municipal Corporation had approached the Land Acquisition Officer No.16 on 16 th April, 2009 based on the application of the petitioner and requested that the steps be taken so that the road can be widened.
6. Once no amicable solution was found, it is stated that the notice has been issued and the parties were informed that they should hand over possession in advance.
7. Exhibit 'D' is the impugned notice which purports to inform the petitioner as to why the building should not be pulled down. Now, the petitioner says that the notice under Section 260(2) of this Act is entirely misconceived and untenable.
8. It is stated that this notice can be issued only on reaching the satisfaction in terms of that provision else that provision cannot be invoked for meeting the situation or contingency before the Planning Authority, namely, the Municipal Commissioner. The whole purpose of a notice under Section 260 is to take proceedings in respect of building or work commenced contrary Page 2 of 4 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 14:00:56 ::: 911-WP-9102-13.doc to rules or bye-laws. The notice does not indicate which of the work is commenced contrary to rules and bye-laws or completed without adherence to the same.
9. The understanding of the petitioner is that, it is the Municipal Corporation/respondent before us, who requires the land for road widening for that is affected by that project. However, a complete building is standing at site. There is not a word about it being unauthorised, illegal or the work carried out at site is contrary to law. Hence, this notice has been challenged.
10. There is no affidavit in reply though this petition is pending in this Court nearly for last six years.
11. It appears that there is an oral understanding between the parties that the petitioner would not be dispossessed nor his premises would be taken over otherwise than by due process of law.
12. These are wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs for what we have noticed from the plan produced for our perusal is that there is a bottle neck and possibly at every nook and corner of this road. The road is required to be widened because most of the vehicles leaving Pune for Mumbai as also entering Pune from Mumbai use this road. The portions of this road also link the Page 3 of 4 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 14:00:56 ::: 911-WP-9102-13.doc National Highway No.4. We do not think that the Municipal Corporation of Pune is interested in going ahead with the proceedings or taking such steps as are contemplated in law so as to carry out the work under this project.
13. Once there are no clear instructions and there is no affidavit placed on record, we are left with no alternative, but to summon the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Land Management and Acquisition, Pune Municipal Corporation to remain present in this Court with the original record. He shall attend the Court on the next date, namely, 2nd July, 2019 at 3.00 p.m. The failure to attend would be viewed seriously and proceedings in contempt may also be initiated.
14. This order is all the more necessary because there are some oral understandings given to the Court because of which the Municipal Corporation cannot proceed to implement and complete the public project.
(G.S.PATEL, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 4 of 4 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 14:00:56 :::