Nagpur High Court Criticizes NMC Over Repeated Tree Choking The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday condemned the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for its persistent failure to protect urban trees from being re-encased in concrete during infrastructure projects. The court highlighted recent incidents in areas like Narendra Nagar and Civil Lines, where trees were allegedly choked again with concrete despite prior directives. The bench, comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode, expressed frustration over the civic body’s negligence, stating that it showed neither concern for the survival of trees nor accountability for public funds spent on unchoking drives. The court’s intervention followed two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sharad Patil and others, which sought the removal of concrete around trees and prevention of tree felling during development works. The judges noted that the NMC had been directed previously to remove concrete from trees regardless of which authority controlled the road or area. This directive came after an audit revealed that nearly 3,691 trees across Nagpur had been choked in concrete, severely impacting their growth and survival. During the hearing, the judges questioned the NMC’s oversight, emphasizing that civic officials were responsible for ensuring contractors adhered to guidelines and did not repeat violations. The court also demanded an explanation for the apparent lack of monitoring and accountability. Court-appointed amicus curiae advocate Radhika Bajaj pointed out that the city’s tree census report, mandated by earlier court orders, had not yet been submitted. The NMC responded by stating that tree census work in most zones had been completed.#nagpur #nagpur_municipal_corporation #sharad_patil #radhika_bajaj #nagpur_high_court
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
