Disposed

Sairam Co-Operaive Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2010WP/250/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection and prosecution against unauthorized construction on a disputed plot. The Court directed police to prevent construction without a certificate and to act on the MPC’s complaint, expressly intending no opinion on property rights.

What did the court decide?

Directed Naupada police to prevent unauthorized construction without a commencement certificate and to act on the Corporation’s complaint under Section 52 of the MRTP Act.

Sairam Co-Operaive Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

4w250-10 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.250 OF 2010

¶4

Sairam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr.S.m. Oak, Advocate i/b. Mr.Sagar Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P., for the Respondent – State. Mr.Mahesh Patil, Advocate i/b. Mulani & Co. for respondent No.3BMC.

¶7

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2010

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

In this Petition, the petitioner has made following prayers :

¶12

"(a) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide and post appropriate number of Police personnel to protect the properties i.e. the said land and the said building described in paragraph No.1 of this petition from unknown anti-social persons who are trespassing upon the said land and the said building for carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction activity;

¶13

(b) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to lodge a complaint u/s 425, 426 and 441 of Indian Penal Code and also under any other provisions as may be applicable in law

¶14

4w250-10 2

¶15

with respect to the offence of trespassing and mischief with respect to the said land and the said building and forthwith take necessary steps by arresting the said unknown anti-social persons carrying on construction activities on the said land illegally and unauthorizedly and also the Respondent No.3 to institute prosecution u/s 52 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and also to take appropriate steps against the construction activities being carried out on the said land illegally and unauthorizedly;"

¶16

This Court is informed that the Assistant Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation, Thane has passed the order dated 8.2.2010 under Section 360 of the M.R.T.P. Act in respect of the construction started on the City Survey No.84, Tika No.23 (for short “the said plot”). The petitioner society claim a right in the said plot on the basis of the agreement to sale executed in favour of the flat purchasers in 1984. The Corporation in pursuance of the order dated 8.2.2010 has also lodged a complaint against the persons who started construction, under Section 52 of the M.R.T.P. Act. We do not wish to examine the rights of the parties to this petition, so also of the persons who made an attempt to make construction over the said plot.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the parties have fairly stated that

¶18

4w250-10 3

¶19

we need not record reasons for the order that we propose to pass. Hence, we dispose of the petition by the following order :

¶20

[i] The Naupada police station shall ensure that no unauthorized construction is carried out on the said plot of land unless the Thane Municipal Corporation issues commencement certificate in respect thereof.

¶21

[ii] The concerned police station may also proceed to act on the complaint lodged by the Corporation under Section 52 of the M.R.T.P. Act in accordance with law. It is open for the concerned police station to procure a copy of the complaint lodged by the Corporation under Section 52 of the MRTP Act if they do not have it on their record.

¶22

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

While passing this order we shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the rights of the parties in respect of the said plot.

¶24

(A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Sairam Co-Operaive Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sairam Co-Operaive Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the 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

Vijay Baburaso Chaugule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanumant Devidas Bansode Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Shatrughna Pandurang Mazgaokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Syed Minhajulla Hussani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajju Ijaj Id Mohammad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Noorulhudha Samsudoha and Anr. Vs Rajwardhan and Ors.