Disposed

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule v. Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

Bombay HC12 Jun 2013WP/1784/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed the corporate respondent to process the petitioner's regularization application submitted earlier, passing an order within three months and suspending enforcement of the impugned notice until the decision or for four weeks thereafter. The Court clarified it decided nothing on merits.

What did the court decide?

To process regularization application within three months; suspend notice enforcement; temporary protection for four weeks post-order.

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule Vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

ash

WP-1784.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1784 of 2013

¶5

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule. .. Petitioner Vs The Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation. .. Respondent

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

Shri S.S. Patwardhan for the Petitioner. Shri G.H. Keluskar for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 12TH JUNE 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶11

the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶12

In prayer clause (a) of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the notice dated 30^th January 2013 issued by the Respondent Corporation under Sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that for regularizing the offending structure set out in the impugned notice, on 19^th January 2013, a modified plan was submitted by the Petitioner for sanction. He has invited our attention to the Exhibit-C to the Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation states that the said proposal is still under consideration.

ash

WP-1784.13

In any event, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 53 of the said Act of 1966, the Petitioner was entitled to apply for regularization after the service of the impugned notice.

¶17

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

(a) We direct the Respondent Municipal Corporation to process the application/proposal made by the Petitioner on 19^th January 2013 at Exhibit-C to the Petition and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from today;

¶20

(b) The Respondent shall communicate the order passed on the said application/proposal either to the Petitioner or to the Engineer/Licensed Architect appointed by the Petitioner;

¶21

(c ) Till the communication of the order to the Petitioner

ash

WP-1784.13

or to the Engineer/Licensed Architect, no action shall be taken on the basis of the impugned notice;

¶26

(d) If the order passed on the said application dated 19^th January 2013 be adverse to the Petitioner, the protection granted as aforesaid shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from the date on which the order is communicated to the Petitioner or the Engineer/Licensed Architect of the Petitioner, whichever is earlier;

¶27

(e) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on merits of the application for regularization and it is for the Planning Authority to decide the same in accordance with law;

¶28

(f) Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶29

(A.R. JOSHI, J)

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule v. Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule v. Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Jayant Hari Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

M/S. Autofab Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jai Bhawani Co-Operative Housing Society and Anr. Vs Thane Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Amar Vamanrao Bhagat Vs Kailas Park Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.