Disposed

M/S. Harekrishna Builders, through Ashit Balwant Doshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2012WP/639/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a brief order, disposed of a writ petition filed by a builder regarding obstacles in a slum redevelopment project. The court noted encroachments but deferred substantive action to the Municipal Corporation, directing the petitioner to pursue the matter with the appropriate authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Harekrishna Builders, through Ashit Balwant Doshi Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

639.12

SQP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.639 OF 2012

¶5

Harekrishna Builders ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Kannan Kapur with Mr.Y.K.Kapur, Mr.Valmik Acharya & Ms.Usha Rahi i/b Mayur Narendra & Co. for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms.Nivedita Pawar for Respondent No.1 Corporation.

¶8

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND N.M.JAMDAR, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 24, 2012.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Additional affidavit of petitioner tendered. Taken on record.

¶11

In view of the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal, New

¶12

Delhi vide order dated 31^st January, 2012 in Appeal No.35 of 2011, the petitioner is obliged to complete the redevelopment project expeditiously.

¶13

The petitioner, however, is facing obstacle on account of certain encroachments. The petitioner has already made representation. Appropriate Authority of the Corporation to take corrective actions at the earliest, so that, the petitioner can complete the slum rehabilitation work and redevelop the property expeditiously. It is not in dispute that final

¶14

¶15

639.12

¶16

notice has also been issued by the Appropriate Authority of the Corporation on 19^th January, 2012. In that case, the concerned Authorities of the Corporation will have to take the matter to its logical end on the basis of the said notice. That cannot brook any further delay. We hope and trust that the Appropriate Authority would do the needful, as may be advised. The petitioner is free to pursue the matter with the appropriate Authority of the Corporation.

¶17

In view of the above, nothing more is required to be done in the present petition. The same is disposed of.

¶18

Needless to observe that if the final notice dated 19^th January, 2012 has been challenged by any aggrieved person by way of appeal before the Administrator, the said Authority may have to decide the challenge expeditiously. If such appeal is presented by any person before the Administrator, the same must be disposed of not later than three months from the date of presentation of such proceedings after giving fair opportunity to all concerned.

¶19

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)

¶20

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

M/S. Harekrishna Builders, through Ashit Balwant Doshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Harekrishna Builders, through Ashit Balwant Doshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha Andors Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Govt of Higher and Technical Educa. Dept and Ors.

Mr. Pravin Kumar M. Singh and Ors. Vs Mr. Radheshyam Trivedi and Ors.

Shivaji Sambhaji Satker Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Proposed Vaibhav Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ravikant Narayan Acharekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare and Justice Dept and Ors.

M/S Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.