Dismissed

Jospeh E. Silva v. Mumbai Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Bombay HC7 Mar 2005WP/601/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition filed by the Petitioner challenging a notice of unauthorized construction under Section 351. The Court found no documentary evidence of authorization or prior existence and held the service on the Constituted Attorney did not cause specific prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is rejected with no merit and no stay granted.

Jospeh E. Silva Vs Mumbai Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 O. O. C. J.

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.601 OF 2005

¶5

 Joseph Emanual Silva ..Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Mumbai Municipal Corporation

¶8

 of Greater Mumbai & anr. ..Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.A.R.Pande for the Petitioner.

¶10

 Mrs.A.R.Joshi for the BMC.

¶11

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
 7th March, 2005.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

 The Municipal Corporation issued a notice
 dated 17th January, 2005 under Section 351 of the
 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 in regard to
 the unauthorized construction carried out by the
 Petitioner. On 22nd January, 2005, the Constituted
 Attorney of the Petitioner submitted a reply. An
 order was passed on 7th February, 2005 holding that
 the structure in question is unauthorized. The
 order of the Assistant Commissioner states that in

¶14

¶15

 the assessment record there is a reference to a
 ground floor and a mezzanine floor of an area of

¶16

 25.24 sq.mtrs. At present, the size of the
 structure is a ground floor admeasuring 400
 sq.mtrs., a mezzanine floor admeasuring 400
 sq.mtrs. and a first floor admeasuring 455
 sq.mtrs. The Additional Commissioner has come to

¶17

 the conclusion that there is absolutely no
 authorization in respect of the structure and that
 there is nothing to show the existence of the
 structure prior to the datum line of 1st April,

¶18

 1962. Even before this Court, I had called upon
 the Petitioner to establish whether any documents
 have been produced with or annexed to the Petition
 to show the existence of permission or
 authorization. Since the grievance of the
 Petitioner was that the notice dated 17th January,
 2005 was served on a Constituted Attorney, the
 Petitioner was called upon to produce before the
 Court any further documents that he may have. The
 Petition is absolutely silent on the existence of

¶19

 any other documentary material and none at all has

¶20

 been annexed to the Petition. The principles of
 natural justice are not meaningless formalities.
 The Petitioner ought to demonstrate in a case such

¶21

¶22

 as the present that any specific prejudice was
 caused by the fact that the notice was received by
 his Constituted Attorney. Even in the Petition no
 material is forthcoming on any authorization.
 There is no merit in the Petition, which is
 accordingly rejected.

¶23

 No stay.

Jospeh E. Silva v. Mumbai Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jospeh E. Silva v. Mumbai Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Tata Employees Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Dr Saurabh Gpel and Ors.

Sarabheet J. Singh Vs Sandoz (India) Ltd.

Ferzin Kurush Patel v/S Vs Kurish Jimmy Patel

Deepika Arvind Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Sadashiv Shinde Vs M/S. Jaslok Hospital and Research Center and Ors.

M/S. Ganesh Enterprises Vs the Liquidator the Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd.