Disposed

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012WP/1778/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to dispose of a pending review application by petitioners within four weeks. The Court mandated maintenance of status quo and clarified it need not express an opinion on the maintainability of said review application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal Secretary to dispose review application within four weeks; maintenance of status quo.

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vss

¶2

wp.1778.2012.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1778 OF 2012

¶5

Palm Towers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .... Respondents

¶8

Mr.D.D. Madon, Sr.Adv. i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Petitioners Mr.Sandeep Marne for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Resp. Nos.6 & 7 Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Vijay Kumar Aggarwal for Resp. Nos.9 to 38

¶9

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED: MARCH 5, 2012

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This petition is filed on the basis of apprehension that the authorities would commence demolition of the structure in question notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have approached the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra by way of review application which is still pending.

¶13

In the circumstances, we dispose off this petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra to dispose off the review

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

wp.1778.2012.sxw

¶16

application filed by the petitioners expeditiously and in any case not later than four weeks from today after giving an opportunity to all concerned. We are not expressing any opinion on the objection taken by respondent Nos.9 to 38 that review application is not maintainable as the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra has no such powers. Needless to observe that all questions that may arise in the review application will have to be dealt with on its merits in accordance with law. In other words, we are not expressing any opinion as to the maintainability of the review application or otherwise. The parties to appear in the Office of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra on 9.3.2012 at 11 am on which date the said authority may proceed to hear the review application or assign some other date as may be advised, but ensure that the proceedings must be disposed within four weeks from today.

¶17

Till the review application is disposed off, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit property. In the event, the order on review application is adverse to the petitioners, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

wp.1778.2012.sxw

¶20

date of the service thereof on the petitioners or six weeks from

¶21

today, whichever is earlier.

¶22

Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶23

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

(A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶25

3 of 3

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Dr. Sureshchandra R. Bhosale and Ors. Vs University of Pune and Ors.

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.