The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition alleging unjustified demolition of a temple structure. The court noted the existence of a pending civil suit regarding same substantive dispute.
The petition is disposed of with direction to proceed with pending civil suit on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 2006
Shiv Mandir Trust & 6 Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay.
... Respondents
Mr. Indu Prakash i/b Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the petitioners.
Ms. P.A. Purandare for the B.M.C.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2007.
P.C.:-
AJN
2
(Maintenance) of the respondent-Corporation. Paragraphs 5(c), 5
(d) and 5(e) of the said affidavit reads thus:
“5(c).I say that by virtue of sanctioned Town Planning Scheme III, Borivli (West), rights of owner of Original Plot No.269 bearing C.T.S. No.103 B are extinguished and the owner of Original Plot No.269 has already been given Final Plot and the Arbitrator appointed by the State Government for implementation of the said scheme has settled their rights while finalizing Town Planning Scheme. I say that hence the Petitioner has no right over the C.T.S. No. 103B of Borivli village and the same vest with these respondents.
5(d) I say that Final Plot No.449 of Town Planning Scheme III is reserved for public purpose of fire brigade and these respondents have put up fire station in the part portion of the plot and the remaining portion of the land is required for expansion of fire brigade activity.
5(e) I say that notice temple is said to be managed by the predecessors of the trust as shed. I say that however the Petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to prove authorization of the structure / temple. I say that the said temple structure is being located on the public place. These respondents have rightly given notice to the Petitioners to demolish the said temple structure pursuant to the direction of the Hon' ble Court passed in Public Interest Litigation. I say that the rights of original owner / predecessors of trustees are already settled by adequately compensating the owner in terms of distribution of plot to them by the Arbitrator in lieu of original holding as well as
AJN
3
awarding compensation of Rs.51,436.65/- after adjusting payable dues. I say that as per provisions of MRTP Act all rights of owner of Original plot are extinguished from the date when Town Planning Scheme takes effect. I say that in the present case, Town Planning Scheme has been finalized by the Government and came into effect from 3/10/1995.”
4. The petition is disposed of.
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this writ petition should be entertained given the respondents' affidavit that rights were extinguished under the Town Planning Scheme.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shiv Mandir Trust & 6 Ors.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay
Ranjana Desai
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
