1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3018 OF 2010 Satyanarayan Chironjilal Thanvi & 3 Others Vs. State of Maharashtra thr Secretary Department of Urban Development & Others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri N. S. Adbe Adv for petitioner. Shri A. S. Fulzele Adv for respondent 1 & 10. Shri Abhijit Deshpande Adv for respondent no.11. CORAM: .B. P. DHARMADHIKARI J. Dated: 08 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. Heard Shri Adbe learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 10, Shri Deshpande learned counsel for respondent no.11. 2] The contention is that there was encroachment on main road and it was authorised by respondents 2 to 11. Because of encroachment so authorised by them, under Section 44 of Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) And Industrial Townships Act, 1965, they were disqualified and contrary view taken by Collector dated 18th October 2 2008 and the subsequent order of State Government dated 30th June 2009 which overlooked this aspect are therefore unsustainable. 3] Shri Deshpande as also Assistant Government Pleader argued that as Municipal Council allowed use of that land as a water kiosk and in public interest, beneficiary namely Umesh Baralia could not have been labeled as encroacher. They further contend that decision was only in public interest and later on construction has been demolished. 4] It appears that standing committee has passed a Resolution admittedly in public interest. There is nothing on record to show that there was any oblique motive in the matter. 5] In this situation I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the respondents shall keep in mind the provisions of law before allotting such land for such purpose in future. Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. No costs. JUDGE svk 3 4 5