Abdul Karim Khan v. The State of Maharashtra & two others

Shri D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Smt. Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.3993/2011 Kamlakar s/o Panditrao Mungikar. ...Petitioner... Versus The State of Maharashtra & two others. ...Respondents... Shri D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Smt. Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ..... WPs 1929/11 & 3993/11 - 2 - CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & NARESH H. PATIL, J. DATE: 29.08.2011 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for direction to restrain the respondent – Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, from taking forcible possession of the petitioners’ property as described in paragraph 2 and prayer clause (A) of the petitions. 3] Though the petitioners have not produced any order, the petitioners apprehend that the respondent – Corporation may take coercive step to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question, for the purpose of widening the road. 4] Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 – Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, and the Municipal Commissioner, states under instructions, that the Municipal Corporation will not take possession of the petitioners’ property without following the procedure prescribed by law. WPs 1929/11 & 3993/11 - 3 - 5] In view of the above statement, nothing further is required to be done in the matter at this stage. The petitions are accordingly disposed of after recording the above statement. (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE ndk/c298117