Dismissed

Dinesh Bhimshi Furia. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Bombay HC21 Mar 2011FA/440/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant withdrew the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but permitted regularization of a disputed structure by the appellant through a licensed architect within a stipulated timeframe. Status quo was maintained pending the regularization decision.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Regularization application permitted within 8 weeks with status quo maintained.

Dinesh Bhimshi Furia. Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 fa440-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.440 OF 2011 ALONGWITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.278 OF 2011

¶6

Dinesh Bhimshi Furia .. Appellant V/s.

¶7

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay .. Respondent

¶8

Mr. M. S. Topkar i/b. Ms. Vaishali Bhilare for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Mahadik i/b. Mrs. K. K. Soraan for respondent – BMC.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA, J.

¶10

DATE : MARCH 21, 2011.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Affidavit of the appellant is taken on record and is marked “X”

¶13

for identification. In view of what is stated in the affidavit of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the Appeal. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶14

:: O R D E R ::

¶15

i. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

2 fa440-11

¶17

ii. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Appeal, it

¶18

will be open for the appellant to apply in prescribed form to the Executive Engineer, (Building Proposals) Kandivali for regularization of the suit structure. The Application shall be made through a licenced Architect. If such application is made within a period of eight weeks from today, the same shall be decided by the concerned Officer within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The order passed in the application shall be communicated to the appellant or his Architect within a period of one week from the date of passing of the order.

¶19

iii. The parties shall maintain status-quo as of today in respect of disputed structure till the application for regularization is decided and the order passed thereon is communicated either to the appellant or to the Architect of the appellant. In the event, the said order is adverse to the appellant, the order of status-quo will

¶20

continue to operate for a period of four weeks from the

¶21

3 fa440-11

¶22

date on which the order is communicated to the

¶23

appellant or his Architect.

¶24

iv. If the appellant fails to apply for regularization within a period of eight weeks from today, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with the work of demolition on completion of eight weeks from today.

¶25

v. All contentions of the parties on merit of regularization of the application is kept open.

¶26

vi. Civil Application No.278 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

Dinesh Bhimshi Furia. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Bhimshi Furia. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yar Mohammed Din Mohammed Haji and Others Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority through Its CEO and Others

New Renu Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Vs 1. M/S.Manas Land Development and Ors.

Meena Shankar Tulpule Vs Shivkumar Mahadeo Gupta and Anr.

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (Reliance Energy Ltd.) Vs M/S.New Heaven Pvt. Ltd.and Ors.

Silver Kurpanandam Vs Gangubai Bhumayya Gundetti

Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Auhtority