Disposed

Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2010WP/337/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a Municipal Corporation's demolition notice, allowing enforcement only for construction done after the 1974 completion certificate, while permitting the petitioner to apply for regularization of subsequent work.

What did the court decide?

Direction to enforce demolition notice only for construction contrary to the completion certificate dated 27th March 1974, allowing one month to apply for regularization of other construction.

Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.337/10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2010

¶6

Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and others

¶7

) ).. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ).. Respondents

¶10

Mr. P.K. Dhakhephalkar, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Shaikh and S.K. Srivastav i/b M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the Petitioners. Ms. S.M. Modle for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 12TH JULY 2010

¶12

P.C.

¶13

What is challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the notice dated 30^th September 2009 and order dated 22^nd January 2010 (Exhibits “B” and “I” to the petition) issued by the respondent- Municipal Corporation for demolition of unauthorized construction and use of the building called “Manish Market”, M.R.A. Marg, Mumbai. The petitioners have mainly challenged the aforesaid notice and order on the ground that the same were issued on the basis that the building plans for the construction in question were sanctioned on 29^th May 1972 and that the existing construction is contrary to the said sanctioned building

¶14

¶15

W.P.No.337/10

¶16

plans. The petitioners, however, contend that subsequently revised building plans were submitted in 1973-74 and that the completion certificate was issued by the respondent Corporation on 27^th March 1974.

¶17

In the affidavit in reply dated 26^th February 2010 filed by Mr Sunil M. Dhamne, Assistant Commissioner, “A” Ward, it is admitted that the complete certificate was issued in the year 1974 but the unauthorized work for which impugned notice and order has been issued was carried out after 1974. It is further stated that from the assessment extracts for the year 1974 onwards produced by the petitioner-society itself, the description of the unauthorized occupants/shops car parking area and terrace is not similar and there is variation from time to time.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that while the action of the respondent-Municipal Corporation in requiring the petitioner-society to demolish the unauthorized construction as contrary to the sanctioned building plans of 1972 cannot be upheld, at the same time it cannot be over-looked that when according to the petitioners themselves after sanction of the revised building plans in the year 1973, the completion certificate was issued on 27^th March 1974 and no further permission is shown for any additional construction, the petitioner-society cannot claim any protection in respect of construction put up after 27^th March 1974.

¶19

¶20

W.P.No.337/10

¶21

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Municipal Corporation shall enforce its demolition notice only in respect of the construction which is contrary to the completion certificate dated 27^th March 1974.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner society would like to make a representation to the respondentCorporation for regularization of the construction put up even after 27^th March 1974.

¶23

Without expressing any opinion, we make it clear that if the petitioners have any such right to apply for regularization, it will be open for the petitioners to make such an application within one month from today and the respondent-Municipal Corporation may decide the same in accordance with law.

¶24

The writ petition accordingly disposed of in terms of the above modification of the impugned notice and order.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Anr.

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

Ramkrishna v. Khot and Ors. Vs Ratnakar Parlhad Herekar and Ros.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Santosh Vidyadhar Kolhapure

Laxmi Education Society and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Noor Mohammed Khatri Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal Vs the Chief Engineer and 2 Ors.

Tilak Nagar C0-OP. Hsg. Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mumbai Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 Ors.