Disposed

Ananda Sakharam Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2010WP/2494/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge disposal held that a petitioner not entitled to relief when admitting illegal construction in their flat and opposing its demolition, especially since the grievance had already been redressed by the builder.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing and set aside of orders and direction for demolition was dismissed; interim relief continued for some time was rejected.

Ananda Sakharam Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

-: 1 :-

wp- 2494/10

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2494 OF 2010.

¶6

Ananda S. Jadhav. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. N. J. Patil for R2. Mr. S. N. Patil, AGP. Mr. Datta H. Pawar for R4.

¶9

Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : September 24, 2010.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following main prayers. :

¶12

“22. The Petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that :

¶13

(a) Be pleased to writ of certiorari, writ in nature of certiorari,

¶14

any other reasonable order, direction, writ calling for the record and proceeding of the Regularisation Application dated 24.08.2007 and the Appeal filed by the Petitioner on 07.10.2009, after going

¶15

through the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 dated 15.09.2009, 12.01.2010 and 25.02.2010 be pleased to quash and

-: 2 :-

wp- 2494/10

set aside the same.

(b) Be pleased to direct the Respondents to demolish the unauthorised construction demarcated in the Notice dated 02.07.1993 issued under section 52, 53 of MRTP Act, 1966.”

¶20

We are informed by the learned counsel for the Council that the illegal construction about which the petitioner has made complaint, has already been demolished by the builder, i.e., respondent no.4. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner is redressed. Learned counsel for the Counsel submitted that respondent no.4 has carried out certain illegal construction in respect of flat of the petitioner. We asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether this statement is correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is indeed some illegal construction. However, he states that the petitioner shall not allow the demolition of the illegal construction in respect of his flat because that will reduce the

¶21

area of his flat. When any person invokes this Court’s writ jurisdiction and admits that illegal construction has been carried out in his flat, and states that that construction shall not be demolished, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court. We clarify that if there is any illegal construction, the Council will be at liberty to take steps to demolish it in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

wp- 2494/10

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶25

interim relief may be continued for some time. The prayer is rejected.

¶26

(R.V. More, J.)

¶27

(Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)

Ananda Sakharam Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Sakharam Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 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

Nand Gopal Associates and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 10 Ors.

Manisha Dilip Apturkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Vishnu Manaji Zankar

Gunvant Babubhai Parekh Vs Jost S Engineering Co. Ltd.

Manisha Ramdas More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Husain a. Hamid and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.