Allowed

Shibibai @ Shivabai Okana Mothi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2007CAW/2292/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal, the bench allowed a recall application to ensure fairness, directing that the respondents be given an opportunity to present their case regarding unauthorized structures before final disposal, while also ruling that the petition's pendency would not hinder the trial court's ability to decide the related civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed on the condition that respondents waive service and refrain from altering the structure while filing an affidavit in reply.

Shibibai @ Shivabai Okana Mothi and Ors. Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2292 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2564 OF 2005

¶7

 Shibai & Shivabai

¶8

 Okana Mothi & Ors. .. Applicants.

¶9

vs.

¶10

 The State of Maharashtra

¶11

 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶12

 Mr. S.P. Kanuga i/by J.S. Chandnani for Applicants.

¶13

 Mr. P.C. Kansara for Petitioner.

¶14

 Mr. V.D. Patil for R. No. 7.

¶15

CORAM: J.N. PATEL &

¶16

 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶17

 DATE: 16TH OCTOBER, 2007.

¶18

 P.C.

¶19

 . The respondent nos. 3 and 6 have moved this
 Court for recalling our order dated 23.3.2007 by which
 this Court disposed of the petition by directing the
 officials of the Municipal Corporation of Ulhasnagar to
 demolish the unauthorised structure which is claimed by

¶20

 2
 the applicant no. 6.

¶21

 2. It is the contention of the applicants that
 they were not served and the orders came to be passed
 behind their back depriving them of the opportunity of
 being heard.

¶22

 3. On the other hand, it is contended by the
 learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant -
 respondent nos. 3 and 6 - have no locus standi in the
 matter as their construction is wholly unauthorised and
 as they have no right, title and interest in the land
 in question, they are rank trespassers and have
 encroached upon the land.

¶23

 4. The contention of the respondent non-applicant
 is supported by the Municipal Corporation of Ulhasnagar
 and it is their case that in past the unauthorised
 construction was demolished repeatedly.

¶24

 5. The case of the applicants - original
 respondents - is that they cannot be condemned without
 being heard. In our view, the Court will have to give
 them a fair opportunity of putting their case before
 this Court. Therefore, we allow the application in
 terms of prayer clause (a) on the condition that the
 respondent nos. 3 and 6 are waiving serving in the
 matter and would not carry out any addition and/or
 alteration to the existing structure.

¶25

¶26

 6. The petition be listed for hearing at the stage
 of admission on 29.10.2007. By that time the
 respondent nos. 3 and 6 should file their affidavit in
 reply and the Municipal Corporation is directed to make
 available orders, court record and proceedings relating
 to the disputed land and structure so that the petition

¶27

 can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶28

 7. We are informed by the parties that the civil
 suit in the matter is also pending which is concluded
 and due for judgment. We make it clear that the
 pendency of this petition is no legal impediment to the
 trial Court to proceed with the suit and the trial
 court may decide the same on its own merits without
 being influenced by the fact that the petition is
 pending in this Court.

¶29

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶30

 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

Shibibai @ Shivabai Okana Mothi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibibai @ Shivabai Okana Mothi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwas Ramchandra Agalave and Ors. Vs Chinchwad Deosthan Trust and Ors.

Pradeep Raghunath Penkar Vs Shweta Pradeep Penkar and Anr.

M/S. Vaidya and Co. and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane andOR

Balgounda Jingonda Patil Vs Sudhir Anna Patil (Decd.) by Heirs

Ujwala Tushar Sainkar Vs Tushar Damodhar Sainkar

Century Rayon Vs the State of Maharashtra