Dismissed

Tajen Madhavji Patel and Ors. v. Hari Hotumal Tanwani and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2006CAI/1/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a civil application regarding a regularisation plea for an unauthorised building. The appellants' attempt to override previous orders was dismissed, the status quo was vacated, and demolition was ordered.

What did the court decide?

The application is rejected with costs; the order of status quo is vacated; the Commissioner is directed to proceed with demolition of the building.

Tajen Madhavji Patel and Ors. Vs Hari Hotumal Tanwani and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2006

¶3

IN

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 105 OF 2003

¶5

Mr. Tajen Madhavji Patel & Ors.] .. Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hari Hotumal Tanwani & Ors.] .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.P.C. Kansara for the appellant.

¶9

Mr. Aspi Chinoy with Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee - Amicus
Curiae.

¶10

Mr. H.H. Tanwani - respondent No.1 in person.

¶11

Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate, with Mr. V.D.
Patil for respondent No.2 and 3.

¶12

Mr. R.M. Sawant GP, with Mrs. J.S. Pawar, Addl.G.P. for
the respondent No.4-State.

¶13

CORAM: R.M. LODHA &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶14

DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2006

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1.The application is wholly misconceived and
rather an abuse of the process of Court. The entire
building namely "Rahul Palace" constructed on Plot
Nos.128, 129 and 130 Sheet No.86 near Bk.No.184,
Ulhasnagar, is unauthorised and illegal. As a matter of

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

fact, the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation refused
sanction and approval of building plan, but despite that
the building "Rahul Palace" was constructed.

¶19

2.The application for regularisation dated 17th
December 2005 made by the petitioners before the
Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation is
misconceived and intended to overreach the orders dated
27th April, 2005, 23rd November, 2005 and 7th December,
2005. The entire building being unauthorised, the case
of the petitioners does not fall in the category of
cases for which liberty was granted in the order dated
7th December, 2005.

¶20

3.The application is rejected with costs of
Rs.5,000/-. The order of status quo passed by the
Vacation Bench on December 28, 2005 is vacated.

¶21

4.The Commissioner,Ulhasnagar Municipal

¶22

Corporation shall now proceed with the demolition of the
building "Rahul Palace".

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

[srpasha@hc]

Tajen Madhavji Patel and Ors. v. Hari Hotumal Tanwani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tajen Madhavji Patel and Ors. v. Hari Hotumal Tanwani and Ors.

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

Manoj Murlidhar Ahuja and Ors. Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Anr.

M/S.Vakrangee Software Ltd. and Ors. Vs Central Bank of India

Sheriar Faramroze Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.