NA permission – Condition for use of road for adjacent owners of lands
The petitioner – Trust owns Land at village Paldhi. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 own the land infront of the land of the petitioner on Jalgaon-Dhule Road.
The land of the petitioner is just behind the land of the respondents and the road 15 meters and 13.5 meters, respectively, have direct access to the National Highway No.6 of Jalgaon – Dhule road.
The land of the petitioner does not have access to the said National Highway.
The respondent nos.1 to 4 were granted Non-agriculture permission dated 29.6.2012 for their lands on certain conditions including condition no.21 that the roads in the sanction lay out should coordinate with the roads with the adjoining lay out i.e. the direction to leave & keep road of 15 meters wide and 13.5 meters to be used by the adjacent land holders.
However, the respondent nos.1 to 4 have obstructed the road.
The petitioner filed complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The matter was settled and the Order dated 19.5.2016 as per consent terms was passed.
The respondent nos.1 to 4 filed appeal on the ground that the said order was not as per the compromise terms. The Additional Collector rejected the appeal by the order dated 31.3.2018. The Revision was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide Order dated 31.3.2018.
However, the Minister of State for Revenue held that the order of SDO is beyond the scope of the compromise.
HELD that section 52 of the MRTP Act provides for penalty for unauthorised development or for use otherwise than in conformity with Development Plan. Sub-section (1)(b) provides that any person who commences or changes the use of any land which is not in accordance with any permission or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission has been granted.
If there is any element of public interest involved, the Court steps in to thwart any waiver which may be contrary to such public interest. In the present case, the road which is blocked by the respondent is a public road and the compromise entered between the petitioner and the respondent amounts to waiving the right which is against the public policy and public interest. Whenever there is compromise and it is opposed to the public policy or statute, it is not binding on the Court.
Judgment dated 12.2.2025 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No.3796 of 2020 of Gurunanank Goshala Trust Vs. Shri Rameshwar Shreekrishna Somani and others
