Disposed

Ramesh Golani and Ors. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2007WP/7349/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding demolition of a structure. It stayed the demolition pending the final order on regularisation and accepted an unconditional apology in a separate contempt matter, discharging those proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Stay on demolition until final regularisation order; contempt proceedings discharged on unconditional apology.

Ramesh Golani and Ors. Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7349 OF 2002

¶5

Shri Ramesh Golani and Ors....Petitioners

¶6

Versus
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
and anr.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

N.Shimpi i.by. Sachin Dhakephalkar for the petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Kamble for respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

14th December, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1.The Civil Revision Application and the Writ
Petition are arising out of Special Civil Suit No. 203
of 2000.

¶13

2.It appears that the inter-locutory proceedings
have given rise to this Writ Petition and the Civil
Revision Application.

¶14

3.Earlier, the C.R.A. was filed but subsequent
to the amendment in the CPC, the same was held to be
not maintainable. Permission was granted to convert it
or file a Writ Petition, therefore the Writ Petition.

¶15

:2:

¶16

4.The grievance of the petitioners is that the
First Respondent Corporation has proceeded to demolish
partly the construction/structure which was occupied by
them. Apprehending, the further demolition a suit was
filed for injunction and an ad-interim order was
granted but the same was not continued. The appeal has
also been dismissed.

¶17

5.During the pendency of this petition, a
direction was issued to implead the Developer/Builder
Mr.Vinod Thakur as party Respondent no.2. He has been
impleaded.

¶18

6.It appears that during the pendency of these
proceedings, in view of the Ordinance promulgated by
the State, an Application was made for regularisation
of the subject construction.

¶19

7.After taking instructions, Mr.Kumbhakoni makes
a statement that the second Respondent applied for
regularisation, paid the compounding fees and the
subject structure has been regularised. Since the
compounding fees are now paid, formal orders are now

¶20

:3:

¶21

awaited, but the Corporation in particular has approved
the proposal for regularisation.

¶22

8.This statement is made on behalf of Respondent
no.2. Mr.Kamble, appearing for the first respondent
states that he has no instructions.

¶23

9.Even otherwise, in the light of these
developments nothing fruitful will be achieved by going
into the merits of the controversy. The entire issue
has become academic. In such circumstances, it would
be appropriate to protect the petitioners occupation in
terms of the order passed by this court and continued
from time to time. In other words, until and unless
the final orders on the Regularisation proposal are
issued, the structure occupied by the petitioners shall
not be demolished. The parties to abide by the final
orders on Regularisation. The Corporation to take
final decision on this Application, if penidng, within
a period of three months from today. Until, then the
ad-interim order will continue.

¶24

10.In the light of this, Writ Petition is

¶25

:4:

¶26

disposed off. Civil Revision Application is also
disposed off. No order as to costs. However, the
Corporation is at liberty to take necessary steps in
accordance with law in case it proceeds to reject the
request of Regularisation.

¶27

11.The Contempt Petition is on the basis that the
Respondent no.2 completed construction activity at site
under the garb of the ad-interim order of the Civil
court. He has been issued a contempt notice by this
court. Today he appears in person and tenders and
unconditional apology. He submits that he being not a
party to the suit and unaware of the consequences of
the orders made therein, the construction activity
proceeded in a bonafide manner.

¶28

12. Now that the Regularisation is also being
contemplated, he prays that the contempt proceedings
may be discharged and dropped. He apologies for his
conduct and states that the breach/violation, if any,
is not intentional. He tenders an unconditional
apology to the court. He is present in the court also.
In such circumstances, the Contempt Petition need not

¶29

:5:

¶30

be pursued further and is accordingly disposed off.

¶31

*******

Ramesh Golani and Ors. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Golani and Ors. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rang Biharilal Goel and Ors. Vs Shyam Niwas Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Sharjeel Akbar Kokani Vs the Faize Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Salim Akbar Kokani Vs the Faize Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Vikhya Laxman Wadhan and Ors. Vs Vipul Pranjivan Chheda and Anr.

Raosaheb Namdev Patil Vs Vjayasinha Krishnarao Deshmukh and Ors.

M/S. Neelkanth Mansions Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs Chandrakant Kantilal Rasputra