The petitioner sought relief under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act for possession of a plot. The court held the petition barred on grounds of gross delay, laches, and res judicata following a prior 1999 writ and a dismissed 2006 contempt petition.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3350 OF 2008.
Shri Valji Devji Patel.
v/s.
Thane Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr.S.V. Dhakephalkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.R. Pitale, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM:J.N. PATEL &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008.
P.C.:
1.It is the petitioners case in the petition that the
Thane Town Planning Scheme No.1 (final) came into force on
31st January 1985. It is submitted by the petitioner that
after finalisation of the final scheme, the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the said Act) provides
for the enforcement of the said scheme and that the planning
authority is under a legal obligation to hand over the vacant
and peaceful possession of the final plot no.491 admeasuring
1979.88 sq.mtrs. to the petitioner under section 88 of the
- 2 -
said Act.
The petitioner had approached this Court as far back as
in the year 1999 by filing writ petition no.1550 of 1999
seeking identical reliefs for the same cause of action. The
said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 4th May 2001 whereunder the statement of respondent no.1
was recorded that they would in all probability complete the
job of removing the encroachers within a period of one year.
However, the Corporation failed to remove the encroachers
within a period of one year. The petitioner remained a mere
spectator several years thereafter and chose to take out a
contempt petition against the respondent only in the year 2006
being Contempt Petition No.166 of 2006, which came to be
dismissed. It is also observed in the order passed, whilst
dismissing the contempt petition, that if the respondent
failed to take necessary steps in terms of the order dated 4th
May 2001 within the period prescribed, it was open for the
petitioner to approach the Court within one year from 4th May
3.It is, thus, clear that the petitioner was sleeping over
his rights and has not taken any steps in execution, despite
- 3 -
the order of this Court dated 4th May 2001. The petitioner
has now chosen to file this fresh petition after 7 years on
identical facts and same cause of action, seeking identical
reliefs. The petition is, therefore, barred not only on the
principles of res-judicata but the same is also liable to be
rejected on the ground of gross delay and latches on the part
of the petitioner.
We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition with no order
as to costs. Needless to add that the dismissal of this writ
petition does not prevent/ preclude the petitioner from
initiating the execution of the matter.
[S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a fresh writ petition filed after seven years on identical facts is maintainable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Valji Devji Patel
Thane Municipal Corporation
J.N. PATEL
S.J.KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court