{"id":69126,"date":"2008-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-26T16:05:28","modified_gmt":"2015-07-26T10:35:28","slug":"rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar<\/div>\n
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                      WRIT PETITION NO.3748 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n     Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors.               ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n           Versus\n\n     Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr.                 ...Respondents\n\n                                   ......\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     Mr.G.S.Godbole for Petitioners.\n\n     Mr.Nitin   Jamdar          i\/b    Mr.Vijay        Killedar            for\n     Respondent No.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                                   ......\n                       ig          CORAM:   A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                            JULY 18, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     1.           Heard Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           The    argument of the Petitioners that                  the<\/p>\n
     interim      relief     has   been wrongly refused             by     the<\/p>\n
     Appellate Court, even though the Appeal is pending,<\/p>\n
     at    the    first     blush,    seems   to     be      attractive.\n<\/p>\n
     However, in the fact situation of the present case,<\/p>\n
     the    order passed by the Trial Court which has been<\/p>\n
     upheld      by   the    Appellate Court      for      the      limited<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      :    2    :\n<\/p>\n
     purpose      of   considering interim relief during                          the<\/p>\n
     pendency       of      appeal,       does       not        warrant           any<\/p>\n
     interference        in    exercise        of    writ       jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     This    is so because, the Petitioners were conscious<\/p>\n
     of    the fact that even for putting up a fencing, it<\/p>\n
     was    necessary       to    seek        prior      approval          of     the<\/p>\n
     Corporation.         The     Petitioners          did apply           to     the<\/p>\n
     Corporation       in     that     behalf,       which        request         was<\/p>\n
     rejected.      The Petitioners, however, without formal<\/p>\n
     approval       from      the        Corporation,             unilaterally<\/p>\n
     proceeded      to erect fencing around the building                           on<\/p>\n
     the<\/p>\n
            assumption that the portion where the                          fencing<\/p>\n
     has    been put up is within the boundary of the land<\/p>\n
     owned      and possessed by the Petitioners.                      The      fact<\/p>\n
     as    to    whether the fencing has been put up                        within<\/p>\n
     the    boundary      is     not     a    relevant        fact       for      our<\/p>\n
     consideration.           The moot question is:                 whether the<\/p>\n
     Petitioners could have erected such fencing without<\/p>\n
     taking      prior    permission of the Corporation?                          The<\/p>\n
     answer      is an emphatic “NO”.              For, even fencing               is<\/p>\n
     covered      by the expression “building” as defined by<\/p>\n
     the    Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations                            Act,<\/p>\n
     1949.      The expression “building” in the Act of 1949<\/p>\n
     reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 :   3   :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “2(5)   “building” includes     a   house,
\n                out-house, stable, shed, hut and other<\/p>\n
                enclosure or structure whether of masonry,
\n                bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other
\n                material whatever whether used as a human<\/p>\n
                dwelling or otherwise, and also includes
\n                verandahs,   fixed   platforms,   plinths,
\n                doorsteps, walls including compound walls
\n                and fencing and the like.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.         Counsel      for the Petitioners, however, was<\/p>\n
     at    pains to argue that only if the fencing results<\/p>\n
     in    enclosure of the property, it would                  constitute<\/p>\n
     building<\/p>\n
                  within      the    meaning<\/p>\n
     ‘building’ reproduced hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       of       definition\n\n                                                       This submission\n                    \n     is    complete    misreading    of     the       said      provision.\n\n     Indeed,    in    the first part of the            provision,            the\n\n     expression      hut   and other enclosure             or     structure\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any<\/p>\n
     other    material     whatever whether used as                 a    human<\/p>\n
     dwelling or otherwise has been mentioned.                      However,<\/p>\n
     the    latter part of the definition of ‘building’ is<\/p>\n
     an    inclusive    definition.     It postulates               that      it<\/p>\n
     would    also    include   verandahs,          fixed       platforms,<\/p>\n
     plinths,    doorsteps, walls including compound walls<\/p>\n
     and    fencing    and   the like.      It      is     an     expansive<\/p>\n
     definition      which   not only includes but                expressly<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                        :    4    :\n<\/p>\n
     refers       to    fencing       and    the like,       which        is      the<\/p>\n
     structure         put up by the Petitioners without taking<\/p>\n
     prior permission of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
     4.            The Trial Court has relied on the decision<\/p>\n
     of     our    High Court in the case of               Pune       Municipal<\/p>\n
     Corporation         vs.    Nanasaheb Nagoji Bhosale<\/a> reported<\/p>\n
     in 1995 (1) Mh.L.J.              427,
\n                                      427 in particular, exposition<\/p>\n
     in paragraph 3 of the said decision to buttress the<\/p>\n
     view    taken       by    it for rejecting           the      prayer        for<\/p>\n
     interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           Counsel       for    the        Petitioners,          however,<\/p>\n
     would    rely       on observations in Paragraph 2 of                       the<\/p>\n
     said    decision         to distinguish the Judgment on                     the<\/p>\n
     specious reasoning that in that case, the structure<\/p>\n
     erected      by     the    Respondent was of            fencing         or     a<\/p>\n
     compound wall partition measuring 5′ x 5′ in height<\/p>\n
     which    consisted         of wooden pillars and               tin-sheets<\/p>\n
     around       the open space admeasuring 60′ x 60′ in the<\/p>\n
     said    property.         However, to my mind, the nature of<\/p>\n
     structure         cannot be the basis to answer the                     issue<\/p>\n
     in   the     context       of the definition            of     expression<\/p>\n
     ‘building’         appearing      in       the Act    of      1949.         The<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                   :   5    :\n<\/p>\n
     definition      as aforesaid is an expansive definition<\/p>\n
     so    as    to include even structure like fencing                      and<\/p>\n
     the like, whether it is enclosure or otherwise.                          In<\/p>\n
     other      words,    even an act of erecting barbed                   wire<\/p>\n
     fencing      around the boundary line would                constitute<\/p>\n
     building      within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the<\/p>\n
     Act    of    1949 for the purpose of the said Act,                      and<\/p>\n
     that    structure      can be erected only            after       taking<\/p>\n
     prior      permission of the Corporation.               No more         and<\/p>\n
     no less.\n<\/p>\n
     6.<\/p>\n
                  There    is yet another facet in this                  case,<\/p>\n
     for which, no interim order can be passed in favour<\/p>\n
     of the Petitioners.         The Respondent Corporation has<\/p>\n
     issued impugned notice calling upon the Petitioners<\/p>\n
     to    remove the disputed structure (fencing) also on<\/p>\n
     the    ground      that the same comes within the                 public<\/p>\n
     road    area.       The plan produced by the Counsel                    for<\/p>\n
     the    Respondents clearly indicates that the                     stated<\/p>\n
     fencing      has    been   put   up    in    area       which       would<\/p>\n
     obstruct the road (area in road widening).<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     7.           The    argument of the Petitioners that even\n\n     if    it comes within the road area, the same                     cannot\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span>\n                                      :   6    :\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     be usurped by the Corporation without following due<\/p>\n
     process      of    law,    cannot       be the      basis       to     grant<\/p>\n
     injunction        to    the Petitioners to permit                 them      to<\/p>\n
     perpetrate the illegality of having erected fencing<\/p>\n
     –    which is a building within the meaning of Act of<\/p>\n
     1949    –    without      seeking prior permission                  of     the<\/p>\n
     Corporation.           In the first place, the               Petitioners<\/p>\n
     will    have      to remove the said fencing and                    agitate<\/p>\n
     all    other      issues before appropriate forum as                       and<\/p>\n
     when occasion arises.\n<\/p>\n
     8.<\/p>\n
                  Suffice      it to observe that no               indulgence<\/p>\n
     is    warranted in this Writ Petition.                   Although          the<\/p>\n
     Appellate        Court    has    not adverted to             the     latter<\/p>\n
     aspect      of    fencing obstructing the road area,                       the<\/p>\n
     conclusion reached by the Appellate Court will have<\/p>\n
     to be upheld in larger public interest.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioners<\/p>\n
     seeks    six weeks time to enable the Petitioners                           to<\/p>\n
     carry    the matter in appeal.               I see no propriety in<\/p>\n
     acceding      to this request when the Petitioners have<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                  :    7    :\n<\/p>\n
     admittedly        erected        fencing          without           prior<\/p>\n
     permission;       and    more    so    because        the      same      is<\/p>\n
     obstructing      road    area.       Hence, this          request        is<\/p>\n
     rejected.      Additionally,         it   will not be            out     of<\/p>\n
     place    to   record that the fencing is                nothing         but<\/p>\n
     some    wooden    logs erected around the boundary                      and<\/p>\n
     barbed by wire fencing.          If that structure is to be<\/p>\n
     removed    and    even    if the Petitioners              succeed        in<\/p>\n
     appeal,    it can be re-erected, without causing much<\/p>\n
     hardship to the Petitioners.              Even for this reason,<\/p>\n
     prayer for continuation of stay is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:36:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3748 OF 2008 Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr. …Respondents …… Mr.G.S.Godbole for Petitioners. Mr.Nitin […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-26T10:35:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T10:35:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1021,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T10:35:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-26T10:35:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T10:35:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008"},"wordCount":1021,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008","name":"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T10:35:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-balwantrao-deshmukh-ors-vs-solapur-municipal-corpn-anr-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Balwantrao Deshmukh & Ors vs Solapur Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 18 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}