Allowed

Rohidas Gajanan Bhalerao and Ors. v. the Executive Engineer and Regional Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2007WP/8263/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that an alternate remedy exists under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, generally influencing the decision. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, the court permitted withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file an appeal within three weeks, extending an interim stay on demolition until that deadline passed or until further orders. No deat

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to withdraw with liberty to file appeal; interim stay on demolition extended until December 20th, 2007.

Rohidas Gajanan Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the Executive… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.8263 OF 2007

¶4

 Rohidas Gajanan Bhalerao & Ors. .. Petitioners
 Vs.

¶5

 The Executive Engineer and
 Regional Officer, Pimpri Chinchwad
 Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune
 & Others .. Respondents

¶6

 Mr.P.B.Shah for the petitioners

¶7

 Mr.D.R.More with Mr.A.J.Suryawanshi for respondent
 nos.1 and 2

¶8

 Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Mr.R.C.Master for respondent
 nos.3 to 5 and 8

¶9

 Mr.Rajesh Behere, A.G.P. for respondent nos.6, 7
 and 9

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.
DATED : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2007

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 1. The petitioners have alternate remedy under
 section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
 Planning Act, 1966. Therefore, this court is not
 inclined to entertain the petition.

¶13

¶14

 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners
 submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the
 petition with liberty to seek alternate remedy
 available to him under the statute and till then,
 their structures be protected.

¶15

 3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we
 are inclined to permit the petitioners to withdraw
 the petition with liberty to file an appeal and
 this court makes it clear that the petitioners
 should prefer an appeal on or before 20th December,
 2007 from the date of filing of this petition
 before the appellate authority. Till then, the
 interim order passed by this court in Vacation on
 15th November, 2007 i.e. the respondents are
 directed not to carry out the demolition till 22nd
 November, 2007 be continued. In case the
 petitioners prefer an appeal, interim protection
 granted by this court would stand vacated and it is
 left to the discretion of the appellate authority
 to entertain the request of the petitioner to grant
 interim relief, if any, till disposal of the appeal
 and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

¶16

¶17

 In case no appeal is preferred within the
 stipulated period, liberty granted by this court,
 so also the interim order should stand withdrawn /
 vacated.

¶18

 . Authenticated copies of this order be made
 available to the learned counsel for the parties to
 enable them to act accordingly.

¶19

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶20

 ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )

Rohidas Gajanan Bhalerao and Ors. v. the Executive Engineer and Regional Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohidas Gajanan Bhalerao and Ors. v. the Executive Engineer and Regional Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M. Adhate Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aziz Karim Shaikh and Ors., Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sital. K. Harchandani and Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Police, Thane and Ors.

Janjagruti Grahak Munch Raigad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amuda Swamidas Abbel Vs Union of India and Ors.

D. R. Kabre Vs the Secretary to Government of Maharashtra and Anr.