Nagpur High Court Orders Removal of Non-Performing Staff from Anti-Encroachment Drive The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) to remove non-performing staff from the anti-encroachment squad, citing persistent failures in enforcement and ongoing encroachments in the city. The court’s intervention came after hearing two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by the Dhantoli Nagrik Mandal, a local civic group. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode expressed frustration over the NMC’s inability to address long-standing issues, despite repeated orders over the past 16 years. The court questioned the effectiveness of the NMC’s enforcement machinery, emphasizing that while anti-encroachment squads were reportedly functioning, no tangible action had been taken to curb illegal constructions. The bench directed the NMC to submit detailed records of actions taken, along with expenditures on salaries for personnel involved in the drive. The court highlighted that areas such as Dhantoli, Ramdaspeth, Khamla, and Umred Road remained plagued by encroachments, with permanent structures now occupying roads and footpaths. This, the court noted, indicated systemic lapses in enforcement. The bench criticized the prolonged inaction, stating that the case had been pending for over a decade without meaningful progress. “Every time, we are required to repeat the same orders,” the court remarked, underscoring the lack of compliance. The court also mandated that the NMC respond to recommendations from a committee formed to address the issues.#nagpur_municipal_corporation #ramdaspeth #dhantoli #nagpur_high_court #dhantoli_nagrik_mandal
Adoption Validity Determined by Execution Date, Not Registration: Nagpur High Court Ruling The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently overturned the disqualification of a Gondia resident from a compassionate appointment, ruling that an adoption deed becomes legally valid from the date it was executed, not from the date of its registration. The court emphasized that registration is not a mandatory requirement for the validity of an adoption agreement, clarifying that the document’s legal effect begins on the day it was signed. The case centered on a petitioner who applied for a compassionate appointment after the death of his adoptive father, a Zilla Parishad (ZP) teacher who died in service on July 8, 2015. The petitioner’s adoption deed, executed on October 24, 2003, was registered in 2015, after the adoptive father’s death. Authorities had initially included the petitioner in the waiting list of eligible candidates from 2016, but later removed his name, arguing that the adoption was invalid because the registration occurred after the adoptive father’s death. The division bench, comprising Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande, rejected this reasoning. The court held that the adoption deed’s validity is determined by its execution date, not the registration date. It noted that the registration of the document in 2015 could not retroactively invalidate the adoption, which was lawful at the time of execution. The bench also highlighted that statutory provisions confirm a registered document operates from the date it would have taken effect even without registration. The court further acknowledged the petitioner’s long-standing inclusion in the waiting list, stating that this fact indicated prior acceptance of his eligibility by the authorities.#bombay_high_court #zilla_parishad #justices_mukulika_jawalkar #nagpur_high_court #justices_nandesh_deshpande
