Disposed

Sayyed Fahimoddin Sayyed Fayazuddin v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2012PIL/62/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought directions for demolition of an old, ruinous structure. The Court held that as the demolition issue was sub-judice before the Civil Court where the Municipal Corporation was a defendant, it declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of with issues kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with all issues kept open; no opinion expressed on sub-judice matter.

Sayyed Fahimoddin Sayyed Fayazuddin Vs the State of Mah… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 PIL 62 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.62 of 2012

¶4

Sayyed Fahimoddin s/o Sayyed Fayazuddin. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. J.H. Deshmukh, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri. V.D. Godbharale, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1.

¶8

Shri. S.A.G. Qureshi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for intervener – applicants in CA No.9220 of 2012.

¶9

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 6^th SEPTEMBER 2012 PER COURT :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The petitioner prays for directions to demolish the structure which, according to the petitioner, has become too old and ruinous. The subject structure is standing on CTS No.215, Sheet No.98 bearing Municipal No. R-6/277 and 278, according to the petitioner. Certain photographs of the structure are placed on record. The

¶13

2 PIL 62 of 2012

¶14

Municipal Corporation had issued notice addressed to Mr. Govindprasad Brijwasi terming the said structure to be dangerous and intimating therein that the structure be demolished.

¶15

We have heard submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 an 3 have contended that the structure has become too old and dangerous for inhabitants and the neighbours. Therefore, notices were issued for the said purposes.

¶16

The learned counsel for the intervener has referred to judgment dated 12-6-2012 delivered by the District Judge-3 Latur in Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 2009 (Govindprasad Devkinandan Agrawal (Brijwasi) & Others Vs The Secretary, Marathwada Wakf Board, Aurangabad). The learned counsel has placed on record copy of application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Regular Civil Suit No.677 of 2012. The said suit is filed by Govindprasad s/o Devakinandan Brijwasi and another against Municipal

¶17

3 PIL 62 of 2012

¶18

Corporation, Latur and another. By an order dated 6-8-2012 the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur passed following order:-

¶19

“

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Today, the defendant no.1 & 2 have appeared along with their Advocates. Defendant no.1 has filed an adjournment application for filing W.S. & say. The learned Advocate Shri. Joshi for the plaintiff has pressed this application. Heard both the Advocates.

¶22

Having regard to the facts, I am of the view that it is just and proper to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo, as on today, till filing of say to Exhibit No.5. Hence, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo accordingly.”

¶23

The issue in respect of demolition of the said structure is sub-judice before the Civil Court. The Municipal Corporation Latur is one of the contesting defendants in the suit. In view of the same, we are not inclined to pass orders in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Keeping all issues open we dispose of this writ petition. It is clarified that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the issue which is sub-judice before the Civil Court.

¶24

Sd/- Sd/- (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl

Sayyed Fahimoddin Sayyed Fayazuddin v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Fahimoddin Sayyed Fayazuddin v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimaji S/O Patru Hanwate Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Catholic Resident Organization for Social Service Vs the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and Ors.

Rashtriya Apang Vikas Mahasangh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Diwakar Madhukarrao Mundane Vs the Collector, Wardha and Ors.

Adivasi Manglam Krishi Vikas Samajik Sansthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rail Parishad (N.G.O., through, President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohammed Afzal and 2 Ors. Vs the Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Deoyani Vasantrao Nikam @ Deoyani Nisarg Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Sec.Saraswati Shikshan Society Parli Vaijnath Vs Anjali Kautikrao Taur and Anr.

Pandharinath Shamrao Kayande and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sanjay Tukaram Autade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Baliram Bhika Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ku. Mansi Vishnu Dhoble, Minor Thr. Vishnu Laxmanrao Dhoble Vs the State of Mah and Anr.