Kalyan tower on defence land? HC orders inquiry
Bombay high court
on Thursday directed the Thane collector to conduct an inquiry to determine if land on Shri Malang Road, Kalyan (E), on which a 28-storey residential building,
Davakhar Elegance
, stands, is defence land. The court frowned at the defence authorities for not taking "preventive action".
"You have to do something about this. We see that in Pune, Kalyan… everywhere we have seen," said Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik. They were hearing a PIL filed in 2023 by activists Rajendranath Pandey and Sujeet Kadam to stop the ongoing construction and to constitute a committee headed by a retired HC judge to investigate construction permission given by Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) on land belonging to the Defence Ministry.
The petition stated the land in Pisavli village was acquired under the Defence of India Act and compensation was paid to its owners between 1943-45. In April 2018, the KDMC commissioner granted M/s Davakhar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd permission to construct a residential building on it. In May 2019, the defence estate officer (DEO) wrote to the commissioner that no proposal for construction on defence land be approved under any circumstances and all such approval/sanction must be cancelled forthwith. The DEO also wrote to record its name as the owner of the land. The commissioner replied that the land was already under de-requisition and in view of no clarity on the exact land of defence, mutation cannot be done. In Aug 2021, KDMC issued revised building permissions. Between 2022-23, petitioners made various representations.
Their advocates, Ahmed Abdi and Eknath Dhokale, said the Ministry unequivocally stated the land belongs to it. Senior advocate A S Khandeparkar, for the Ministry, said the developer could not construct upon it. KDMC's advocate, Sandip Shinde, said permission was given acting on revenue records that showed it is not defence land. Senior advocate Ram Apte, for the developer, said it is a development agreement with the landowners.
Therefore, the judges directed the collector to "conduct a detailed inquiry… and determine the nature" of the land after hearing all parties on May 8. Depending on the outcome of the proceeding, the KDMC chief shall take "appropriate action" on building permission granted to Davakhar. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within four months.
The judges questioned what preventive action was taken by defence authorities, adding, "you come here when a PIL is filed". Khandeparkar said, "Apart from writing, they have not done anything." He would instruct the DEO that "appropriate action has to be taken at the appropriate stage so that this does not happen."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
'Balanced', 'forward-looking': Pakistan hails 19% tariffs under U.S. trade deal
Pakistan on Friday (August 1, 2025) announced that the U.S. has imposed a 19% tariff on its exports and termed the step as a "balanced and forward-looking" move that enhances the country's competitiveness in the American market. The new rate is down from the previous 29% tariff announced by U.S. President Donald Trump. Welcoming the "successful conclusion" of the tariff-related discussions with the U.S., the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement said, 'As per the outcome of these talks, a tariff of 19% will be applicable for Pakistani exports to the U.S. market.' The decision reflected a 'balanced and forward-looking approach by the U.S. authorities, keeping Pakistan competitive relative to other South and Southeast Asian countries', it said. The Ministry said the revised tariff level is expected to support Pakistan's export potential, especially in key sectors such as textiles, "which remain the backbone of the country's export economy'. Pakistan's exports to the U.S. rose by 11.06% to $5.552 billion from $4.999 billion in the first 11 months of the last fiscal. The Ministry said the current tariff presented a 'significant opportunity to expand Pakistan's footprint in the U.S. market'. 'It is now essential for Pakistani exporters and trade bodies to adopt an aggressive and focused marketing strategy to capitalise on this development,' it said. The statement also pointed out a substantial potential for growth in other sectors. 'The Government of Pakistan looks forward to further positive engagements and close cooperation with the United States in the areas of investment, artificial intelligence, crypto currency, mines and minerals, energy, and other emerging sectors," it said. The Ministry said Pakistan will continue to engage closely with Mr. Trump and the U.S. administration to promote the shared goals of economic development and mutual prosperity. The revised tariff for Pakistan came after the U.S. and Islamabad finalised a trade deal in Washington on Wednesday. In a social media post on Wednesday, the U.S. President said, 'We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves.' However, it was not immediately clear what massive oil reserves in Pakistan Mr. Trump was referring to. Meanwhile, Khurram Schehzad, Adviser to Pakistan's Finance Minister, in a social media post said, 'Pakistan is possibly the only country which the U.S. has offered its investments as well, besides a competitive trade deal.' The 'deal signals a strategic deepening of economic ties and shared growth', he said. Pakistan has long claimed to have large oil deposits along its coast, but no progress has been made to tap those deposits. It has been trying to lure in investments to tap into these reserves. The country currently imports oil from West Asia to meet its energy demands. Mr. Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that raised tariffs for over five dozen countries with Washington's negotiations for trade deals went down to the wire ahead of the August 1 deadline. The tariffs in the list range from 10% to 40%, with Japan being charged 15%, Laos and Myanmar (40% each), Sri Lanka (20%) and the United Kingdom (10%).
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Need of the hour': Bombay HC to get bench in Kolhapur from Aug 18
The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on Friday issued a notification to constitute a bench of the HC at Kolhapur in Western Maharashtra from August 18. The gazette notification issued by CJ Alok Aradhe, with approval from Governor of Maharashtra, was issued over a month after Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai had supported the demand to set up a bench of the Bombay HC in Kolhapur. 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 37 of 1956), and all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, with the approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, appoint Kolhapur as a place at which judges and division courts of the High Court may also sit, with effect from 18th August 2025,' the gazette notification issued by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe of Bombay HC reads. On June 26, while addressing lawyers' association of the Bombay HC at the Aurangabad bench, CJI Gavai had stated that justice should be made available to citizens 'in every corner'. Last year, he had said that the bench at Kolhapur was the 'need of the hour.' Besides the principal seat at Mumbai, the Bombay HC presently has benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad (in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar city) and Goa (at Panaji). On September 28 last year, Justice Gavai, who was the senior judge of the Supreme Court, had said the constitution of Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court is a 'need of the hour.' In support of his demand, Justice Gavai had said that it will offer far-flung residents from the nearby districts an effective access to justice and emphasised that additional benches do not bring down the stature of the HC. The lawyers have been demanding a bench of the high court in Kolhapur for several years, claiming that a large number of cases pending at HC are from the same region. The lawyers had claimed that citizens from six districts in the Kolhapur region are compelled to travel 400-500 km to approach the principal seat of HC in Mumbai. The six districts included Satara, Sangli, Sindhudurg, Ratnagiri, Solapur, and Kolhapur. Responding to the demand raised by Justice Gavai, the then Deputy Chief Minister (present CM) and law minister Devendra Fadnavis had in September last year said that the state government had already passed a resolution for a Kolhapur bench and 'the ball was in Bombay HC administration's court' to decide on the same. Earlier, in March 2022, at an all-party meeting, political leaders of the state had supported the demand for setting up a circuit bench (temporary courts functioning for a few months every year) at Kolhapur. They had cited a study that said it would take 45 per cent burden off the court. The Bombay HC is presently functioning with 66 judges, 50 permanent judges, and 16 additional judges. However, the sanctioned strength of the court, which is the second largest in the country after the Allahabad High Court, is 94.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Woman deported to Pak. after Pahalgam attack to return home on visitor's visa
The Centre has informed the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to a 62-year-old housewife who was deported to Pakistan post-Pahalgam terror attack. The court said the particular case should not set a precedent in any manner. The petitioner, Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani citizen married to an Indian, had been living in Jammu for the past 38 years on a long-term visa (LTV), which was annually renewed. She had applied for a citizenship in 1996 but the request is yet to be processed. After the terror attack on April 22, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) cancelled the visas of all Pakistani citizens and asked them to leave the country by April 29. Ms. Rashid was deported despite the MHA directive that Muslim women who are married to Indian citizens and who have applied for LTVs are not required to leave the country. At the time of her deportation, her LTV application was pending with the Ministry. Solicitor-General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the MHA, informed the court on July 30 'that after much deliberations and considering the peculiarity of facts and unusual factual position in the matter, an in-principle decision is taken by the authority to grant a visitor's visa to the respondent.' Visitor's visas are only granted to Pakistan nationals to visit relatives or for any other legitimate purpose. The SG said the respondent could also pursue the two pending applications – to acquire Indian citizenship as also the LTV with the MHA. The Hindu was the first to report about Ms. Rashid's case on June 23. In distress Ms. Rashid's daughter, Fatima Sheikh, had told The Hindu that her mother had no relatives in Pakistan, and for the past three months she had been living alone in a small hotel and had run out of money. Ankur Sharma, Ms. Rashid's counsel, told The Hindu that they had appealed to the court for a remedy and did not want to take an adversarial position against the government. 'The writ petition has been withdrawn and we welcome the court's order. Ms. Rashid will have to apply for a visa at the Indian High Commission in Islamabad,' Mr. Sharma said. The woman's family moved the court in May. On June 6, Judge Rahul Bharti directed the Union Home Secretary to bring back the petitioner from Pakistan in 10 days. On June 29, the MHA appealed against the order stating that 'judiciary should not override' the executive's decision to deport a foreign national. It added that the HC order is constitutionally impermissible and unsustainable, as it directs the enforcement of a judicial writ beyond the sovereign territory of India to Pakistan, where she was deported and was thus ultra vires. The Ministry also said that the court's direction is 'legally unenforceable and diplomatically untenable'. The July 30 order by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said, 'The Solicitor General of India submits that once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly a room for any doubt that post compliance of the requisite procedure and formalities, the authority would not process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest.' It added, 'We may, however, hasten to clarify that an in-principle decision taken by the authorities centred upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, shall not constitute a precedent in any manner.'
