Disposed

Umesh Mehra and Anr. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2013WP/2783/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order impounding properties under the MRTP Act for unauthorized subdivision. The court permitted the petitioners to apply for regularisation and directed a stay on coercive action during the regularisation process and briefly after the decision.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to apply for regularisation in prescribed form with relevant documents; coercive action stayed during regularisation proceedings and for two weeks after the authorised officer's dec

Umesh Mehra and Anr. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

28 wp2783-12.doc

¶2

TTM

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 2012

Umesh Mehra & Anr.

.. Petitioners

Vs.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.25 OF 2013 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 2012

¶12

Mr.Ravi Kadam, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Ashish Mehta i/b M/s.ANS Law Associates for the petitioners

¶13

Ms.K.R.Punjabi for the respondent-B.M.C.

¶14

Mr.Zubin B. Kamdin i/b Mr.Dhiren H. Shah for the applicant in Chamber Summons

¶15

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND

¶16

K. K.TATED, JJ. DATED:FEBRUARY 20, 2013

¶17

P.C.

¶18

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶19

The petition takes exception to the proposed action of the

¶20

Corporation under section 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966 in respect of the

¶21

1/4

¶22

28 wp2783-12.doc

¶23

structure referred to in the show cause notice and the order passed on 20^th June, 2012 by the Assistant Commissioner, 'D' Ward.

¶24

It is indisputable that the petitioners do not have official permission record with regard to the division of Ground Floor, Flat No.2 into two flats. To that extent, the petitioners are not in a position to successfully refute the point made out in the show cause notice. In that case, the act of subdividing the Ground Floor Flat No.2 into two flats will have to be presumed to be unauthorised unless proved to the contrary by the petitioners.

¶25

The fact as to whether the Corporation has in its possession sanctioned plan of the building or otherwise, including the consequence thereof, is a matter which will have to be considered by the appropriate Authority, in the event, the petitioners were to apply for regularisation. For the time being, suffice it to observe that the petitioners cannot succeed in persuading the court to overturn the order passed by the Asst.Commissioner, D' Ward on the finding that the Sub Division Ground Floor No.2 is unauthorised.

¶26

In deference to this observation, the petitioners submit that in that case, the petitioners would apply for regularisation of the offending structures noted in the show cause notice and the order passed by the Asst.Commissioner 'D' Ward. In that case, we may dispose of this petition

¶27

2/4

¶28

28 wp2783-12.doc

¶29

with liberty to apply for regularisation to the Authorised Officer of the Corporation in prescribed form to be accompanied by relevant documents and upon receipt of such proposal, the Authorised Officer of the Corporation would consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to all concerned.

¶30

We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues to be dealt with while considering the said proposal. The same will have to be decided uninfluenced by the order which is impugned in this petition. The regularisation proposal be finally disposed of by the appropriate Authority of the Corporation within six weeks from its receipt. Until final decision is taken by the authorised Officer of the Corporation on the Regularisation Application, no coercive action be taken on the basis of the impugned show cause notice or the order passed by the Asst.Commissioner 'D' Ward. If the decision of the Authorised Officer of the Corporation is adverse to the petitioners, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said decision to any of the petitioners.

¶31

In view of the above, we need not examine the application for intervention filed by the third party. The third party is free to pursue his grievance in the civil proceedings which are already pending between the parties. The same will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance

3/4

28 wp2783-12.doc

with law.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(K.K.TATED, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

¶37

Mohite

¶38

4/4

Umesh Mehra and Anr. v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Mehra and Anr. v. Brihanmumbai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhondewadi Vivid Karyakari Seva Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Dhondewadi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Kondiba Kargal and Ors. Vs Assistant Registrar for Co-Operative Societies, Indapur and Ors.

Shri. Kundansing Pandit Thoke Vs President and Upper Disrict Collector Divisional Caste Verification Committee Nasik NO.2

Shiv Sena, through Shri. Pramod Laxman Jadhav Vs Mr. Mohan Laxman Bhagat

M/S. Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Association of Chemical Workers and Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Ors. . Vs M/S. Kansan Communications Pvt. Ltd.