Disposed

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2007WP/4359/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding refusal of development permission on reserved land, the Court noted the land was earmarked for a bio-tech park. While accepting the petitioner could file objections before the State Government regarding the unresolved Draft Development Plan, the Court held it could not interfere with the Corporation's refusal and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no direction to grant permission; petitioner encouraged to approach State Government.

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 [-1-]

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY

¶4

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION No. 4359 OF 2006

¶6

 Katraj Cliff Coop.
 Hsg. Society Ltd. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

 The Municipal Corporation
 for the city of Pune & Anr. ... Respondents

¶9

 Mr. Mandar Limaye, Advocate for the
 petitioner

¶10

 Mr. V.G. Mujumdar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO,
 AND
 R. V. MORE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JANUARY 19, 2007.
 P.C.:

¶13

 . The petitioner Cooperative Society has

¶14

 approached this Court, as respondent no.1 has
 refused to grant them development permission on
 the ground that the land is reserved. Earlier

¶15

 stand of the Corporation was that the land is
 partly reserved for Hilltop-Hillslope reservation.

¶16

 The petitioner approached the State Government.
 The State Government noted that the land which was

¶17

 partly reserved, and development couldo take place
 on the land what was not reserved. It now

¶18

 [-2-]

¶19

 transpires that in the Draft Development plan the
 land is reserved for bio-tech park. The
 petitioner has applied for the development
 permission. The respondent Corporation while
 considering permission for development has to take
 into consideration the draft development plan.
 Considering the circumstances, it would not be
 possible to interfere with the order of the
 respondent no.1. refusing permission to develop,
 however, the plan has not been finalised by the
 State Government, it would be open to petitioner
 to file the objections before the State
 Government. If the petitioner files objection,
 the State Government to consider the same
 according to law. With the above observation,
 petition stands disposed off.

¶20

[R.V. MORE, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO, J.]

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune 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

Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushilkumar Dharmaraj Navsare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Premsingh Bava Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek Dattatraya Shinde Vs the Election Commission and Ors.

Manik Laxman Shinde Vs the State Election Commission and Anr.

Pandurang Dattu Mali Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.