Writ petition where petitioner sought direction against disturbance of possession. Court found no need to entertain petition as Corporation's proposed inspection/waiting for proposal is lawful. Disposed.
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 :-
wp-528/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
srp
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 528 OF 2010.
M/s. Edwina Lal. ..Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai & Others. ..Respondents.
P. L Mahadik for the petitioner. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for R-1 to 3. Ms. Uma Palsule Desai, AGP for R-4.
Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : September 13, 2010.
P. C. :
directed not to disturb the petitioner’s possession in respect of City Survey No. 1032/2, Near Yari Bus Depot, Yari Road, Varsova, Bombay-61. [for
short “ the said property ”]. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation informs us that the Corporation had issued notice under section 488 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, intimating to the petitioner that the officers of the Corporation want to inspect the said property. Counsel further informs us that the petitioner informed the Corporation that inspection may not be taken in view of the pendency of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over to
wp-528/10
-: 2 :-
us a letter addressed by the Corporation to the petitioner dated 27/7/2010. It appears from the said letter that the petitioner has requested the Corporation to grant him permission to develop the said property and the Corporation has directed the petitioner to give certain details set out in the letter dated 27/7/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has submitted documents to the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation states that the proposal of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law. In view of this factual background and statements made in the Court, in our opinion, it is not necessary for us to entertain the petition. However, it is made clear that if the Corporation officers want to inspect the said property, the petitioner shall not obstruct them. Needless to state that in case the Corporation wants to take any action in respect of the said property, Corporation shall do so in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
(R.V. More, J.) (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)
M/s. Edwina Lal
The Municipal Corp. of Gr. Mumbai
RANJANA DESAI
R. V. MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
