Dismissed

Seenen Yakum Khandwani v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2008WP/2493/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to act against an unauthorized hoarding erected by a third party, claiming ownership rights via a decree. The Court declined writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to execute the existing decree while noting other claims are pending in civil forums.

What the court decided

AI extract

Seenen Yakum Khandwani Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2493 OF 2007

¶5

 Seenen Yakub Khandwani .. Petitioner
 Vs.

¶6

 The Municipal Corporation of
 Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 Ms.Shweta Doshi for the petitioner

¶8

 Ms.A.K.Savla for respondent nos.1 to 6

¶9

 Mr.P.D.S.Rao i/b M/s.K.R.P.Legal for respondent
 nos.7

¶10

 Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for
 respondent nos.8

¶11

 Mr.R.J.Mane, A.G.P. for respondent nos.9

¶12

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 K.K.TATED, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2008

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 1. The petitioner has approached this court

¶16

 for a writ of mandamus particularly against the
 respondent Corporation respondent nos.1 to 6
 directing them to take action against the hoarding
 raised by respondent no.8 on the terrace of the

¶17

¶18

 building named as Three View consisting of ground +
 4 upper stories on land bearing C.S.No.1040, Street
 Nos.515A and 517 and assessed under Municipal G
 Ward Nos.2943(2), 2944 at Veer Savarkar Marg,
 Opp.Century Bazaar, Bengal Chemicals, Prabhadevi,
 Mumbai 400 025.

¶19

 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the
 petitioner owns the right to put up an
 advertisement of the respondent which is conferred
 by a conveyance from the builder who constructed
 the building and for which the petitioner has a
 decree in his favour in Short Cause Suit No.108 of
 1984 which has been disposed of by the City Civil
 Court at Bombay by judgment and order dated
 30.11.06.

¶20

 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
 the petitioner that the respondent Municipal
 Corporation is not permitting them to erect an
 hoarding in exercise of their right to do so by
 refusing permission on the ground of amended
 guidelines particularly clause 16(1) which provides
 that not more than one hoarding per 400 sq.mtrs.

¶21

¶22

 of terrace area shall be permitted on any building

¶23

 terrace. However, the consent of the flat occupier
 of the top most floor will be a must, in addition
 to resolution of the CHS.

¶24

 4. In our view, this court need not exercise

¶25

 its Writ Jurisdiction in the matter as the
 petitioner can very well execute the decree
 obtained by the petitioner particularly the City
 Civil Court and thereby exercise their right to
 raise the hoarding by complying with the terms and
 conditions laid down in the judgment and order.

¶26

 5. We are informed that the appeal is pending

¶27

 against the said judgment and decree. If that is
 so, then if there is no stay to the judgment and
 order passed by City Civil Court in the appeal,
 there is no legal impediment in the way of the
 petitioner to execute the decree. In so far as the
 other interest and rights of the other parties are
 concerned, they are at liberty to adopt the same at
 appropriate forum as they all arise from a
 commercial contract awarded to respondent no.8 by
 respondent no.7 society which according to the

¶28

¶29

 petitioner is in total violation of the decree
 obtained by the petitioner from City Civil Court.
 We therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty to
 the parties to seek remedy available to them under

¶30

 the law.

¶31

 6. Petition stands dismissed with no order as

¶32

 to costs.

¶33

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶34

 ( K.K. TATED, J )

Seenen Yakum Khandwani v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Seenen Yakum Khandwani v. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayodhya Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipa Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 6 Ors.

M/S. Csango and 3 Ors. Vs M/S. Navrang Leathers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Mr.J.P.Ribeiro, I.P.S.(Retd.) Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others.

Surendra L. Gajbiye Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ambika Prasad Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Adarsh Ambedkar Seve Sangh Vs Minicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.