Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 958 (BOM)

Ramchandra alias Raghunath Saunsthan, Gimone, Piligao v. Town Planner, Town & Country Planning Dept.

2022-04-01

DIPANKAR DATTA, M.S.SONAK

body2022
JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner's main grievance is that the respondent No.3 is not taking appropriate action against some constructions being put up by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which according to the petitioner are illegal and unauthorized. 4. Mr. V. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that the Sarpanch has taken cognizance of the petitioner's complaint and issued a stop-order cum inspection/panchanama notice dated 24.01.2022 to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Further, based upon such notice even an inspection was held on 31.01.2022 and the panchanama drawn out. 5. Mr. V. Naik states that the Panchayat is prima facie satisfied that illegal and unauthorized constructions are being put up by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and therefore, it is now proposed to issue a show cause notice to the said respondents. Again, on instructions, Mr. Naik states that this show cause notice will be issued within two weeks from today and disposed of within a period of six weeks thereafter. Mr. Naik states that the principles of natural justice will be complied with and opportunity of hearing will be granted to both the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the show cause notice is disposed of. 6. Mr. Godinho, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid statements made on behalf of the respondent No.3 may be accepted and the petition disposed of. 7. Accordingly, we accept the aforesaid statements made on behalf of respondent No.3 and direct the respondent No.3 or rather the Village Panchayat to act consistent with the statements so made, issue show cause notice and dispose of the same within the timeline stated above. 8. We make it clear that we have not gone into the rival contentions on the legality or otherwise of the constructions in question as, according to us, these are the matters which will have to be determined by the respondent No.3-Panchayat in the first instance. Therefore, all such contentions are kept open for determination by the respondent No.3-Panchayat. 9. The rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order for costs.