1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3852/2006 Shailendra Chhotelal Dubey ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, Urban Development and Town Planning Dept. through its Secretary and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kshirsagar, Advocate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kothari, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED : 24 th July, 2008 1. The petitioner basically prayed for an order of restrainment against the respondents not to demolish the entire hotel structure of the petitioner and further to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.06.2006. While issuing notice, this Court has granted order of status quo. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the petitioner make statement that they have already demolished the major portion of the so called hotel. 2 2. In Writ Petition No. 3866/2006, the Division Bench, after considering rival contentions, dismissed the case of the encroachers of the same area. The respondents, based upon that proceeded for a road widening scheme. It is principally completed except the portion, which is alleged to be in occupation/possession of the petitioner. 3. Without going further into the matter, there is a letter issued by Railway Authority to the Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur by observing principally as under:- “Railway administration has also cleared that since on this land there are 26 small shops who are paying license fee to Railways therefore, it has to be ensured that new structures for rehabilitation of existing licensed shops on Railway land are constructed prior to dismentling. For way leave permission, an agreement is to be executed under the terms and condition of Ministry of Railway, Railway Board. In this matter, a Meeting at NMC Conference Hall was held on 15-02-2006 during which it was agreed that NMC will- 3 1. pay the Way leave charges for existing Road Over Bridge (Bridge No. 11L) and 2. rehabilitate Railway licensed shops (26 nos.) at other location on Railway land including constructing the shops & boundary wall. As seen in the Newspaper advertisement in Navbharat dated 10-06-2006, a notice was given for dismantling of Railway licensed shops located exclusively in SEC Railway land on Monday, 12-06-2006 treating these structure as encroachment. It is to be clarified that these shops has been given on license by the Railway administration for business purposes and they are paying license fee to the Railway administration. Therefore, these licensed shops should not be treated as encroachments.” 4. In view of this, the petitioner to make representation within one week if not already made. The respondents to consider the said representation in the light of this letter dated 12.06.2006 and in accordance with law, including to consider an alternate site, if available, and entitlement of it, expeditiously. 5. In view of this, we are of the view that there is 4 no point in keeping this matter pending and also the order of status quo as granted, as it is causing great inconvenience to the people at large as some portion is remained to be developed as per the scheme. The status quo order is vacated. Therefore, the petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE kahale