Dismissed

Smt. Radhabai Krushnasa Pawar and Ors. v. the Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2007SA/1164/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed withdrawal of a second appeal concerning a property structure, granting liberty to the appellants to approach the Municipal Corporation for conversion/regularisation of the structure, with stipulated timelines for applications and official response.

What did the court decide?

Appeal withdrawn; liberty granted to approach Corporation for regularisation with stipulated timelines for application and official response.

Smt. Radhabai Krushnasa Pawar and Ors. Vs the Pune… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2005

¶5

 Smt.Radhabai Krushnasa Pawar & Ors. .. Appellants.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 Municipal Corporation of City

¶8

 of Pune & Anr. .. Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.S.R.Page for appellants.

¶10

 Mr.R.M.Pethe i/b.R.G.Ketkar for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶12

 DATE : 19TH JULY, 2007.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

 1. Mr.Page after taking instructions from the

¶15

 appellant No.5, who is personally present in Court makes a
 statement that the appellant-original plaintiff desire to
 approach the respondents with a request to regularise the
 structure which has been, according to them, in
 existence

¶16

 for a considerable period of time. To enable them to do
 so, they seek leave to withdraw this appeal with liberty

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 to approach the Corporation with a request to regularise
 the subject structure.

¶19

 2. At the request of Mr.Page, the Second Appeal is
 allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. However,
 dismissal of this second appeal as withdrawn shall not
 prevent the appellants from approaching the Corporation
 with a request as above and such request, if made, shall
 be considered by the Corporation on merits and in
 accordance with law.

¶20

 3. Mr.Page states that the appellant is approaching
 the Corporation with a request for regularisation of the
 structure afresh within a period of three weeks from
 today. Mr.Page on instructions states that the appellants
 would alongwith their application also produce the
 necessary No Objection / Consent certificates of other
 owners / co-owners of the subject property.

¶21

 4. If the application is made as above and
 accompanied also with the No Objection / Consent

¶22

 certificates, the Corporation to consider the same and
 communicate its orders thereon within a period of eight
 weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.

¶23

 : 3 :

¶24

 5. The subject structure has not been demolished,
 according to Mr.Pethe and he further states that the same
 will not be demolished for a period of 12 weeks from
 today.

¶25

 6. Needless to state that the Corporation need not
 wait for 12 weeks to initiate action for demolition, if it
 does not receive any application for regularisation of the
 subject structure from the appellants within the time
 stipulated above.

¶26

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)

Smt. Radhabai Krushnasa Pawar and Ors. v. the Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Radhabai Krushnasa Pawar and Ors. v. the Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaram Krishna Kadam Vs Sundarabai Dattatray Kokate and Ors.

Shivaji Limbaji Jadhav Vs Pandharpur Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Smt. Sitabai S. Jadhav and Ors. Vs M/S. Dalichand Rajmal and Ors.

Sayyed Asif Ali Noor Ali Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Sou Shalini Shankarrao Chavan and Ors. Vs Shri Bhaskar Parshuram Patil and Anr.

Smt. Radhabai Krushnasa Pawar and Ors. Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.