2704wp1931.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1931 OF 2010 Shri Ramwadi Nagarik Sudhar Sangharsha Samiti Vs. The Chief Secretary & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 27/04/2010 Heard Mr. R. R. Rajkarne, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. Perused the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be in respect of encroachment alleged to have been committed on the public road. On earlier occasion by an order dated 30/9/2008 in writ petition No. 3074 of 2008, the said writ petition came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance as well as by an order dated 07/9/2009 passed in MCA (Review) No. 135 of 2009 the petitioner was given liberty to make representation before the competent Authority for redressal of his grievance. It is not in dispute that in view of the said liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has submitted the representation which was decided by the Authority by passing the impugned order. The observations made in para 8 of the impugned order dated 30/12/2009 passed by the Chairman, Nagpur 2704wp1931.10.odt 2/2 Improvement Trust reads thus : “Though the parties were given an opportunity to file the documents, the Counsel for the applicant/petitioner has filed the citations only. No other documents have been filed. These citations are of no use for the purpose of deciding the matter in hand. The Counsel for the applicant /petitioner has not filed any authenticated map or plan to substantiate the case of the applicant/petitioner showing the existence of public road as alleged by him and hence, the Counsel for the applicant/petitioner utterly failed to prove the existence of public road. Under the circumstances, the applicant/ petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed. However, taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the matter, the Executive Engineer (South) and the Divisional Officer (South), Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, shall inspect and verify the construction on plot No. 55-A and if it is in violation of Building Permit issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, action shall be initiated for removal in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001.” In view of the above referred observations, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Trust states that appropriate steps would be taken accordingly. In the circumstances, we do not propose to show any indulgence in the present writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE wwl