Disposed

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

Bombay HC12 Jun 2013WP/4528/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Municipal Officer to hear the petitioner and opposing parties regarding disputed documents before passing a final order on the impugned notice, vesting the decision on merits with the Officer while preserving the petitioner's right to file a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Municipal Officer to conduct hearing; stay of notice subject to non-transfer of possession; preservation of right to file civil suit.

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani Vs the Pune Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp 4528-2013

¶2

sat 1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4528 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani ...Petitioner vs.

¶6

The Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr.Tejas Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr.A.P. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – Corporation. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.4. Mr.R.D. Soni for Respondent Nos.5 and 5A.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

JUNE 12, 2013

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 and 5A. Learned AGP appears for respondent no.4.

¶12

2 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though remedy of filing a suit for declaration is available to the petitioner, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred insofar as challenge to the impugned Notice under Sections 89 and 90 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1960 is concerned. The petitioner is claiming rights under the lessee of the original allottee of the final plot. There is a serious dispute raised by the contesting respondents regarding the genuineness of the

¶13

wp 4528-2013

¶14

sat 2/4

¶15

documents relied upon by the petitioner. For resolving the controversy, it will be appropriate, if a Municipal Officer considers the case of the petitioner after permitting him to file a reply to the notice and to submit documents. As the petitioner is claiming rights on the basis of documents allegedly executed by the original allottee, we are inclined to pass an order directing the appropriate Municipal Officer to give hearing to the petitioner and to pass final order on the notice. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal corporation is that the petitioner may be called upon to produce the original documents on which reliance has been placed by him.

¶16

3 It is for the petitioner to produce proper documents before the Municipal Officer. If the original documents are not produced and there is no adequate explanation offered by the petitioner for non-production of the documents, it is for the concerned officer to draw adverse inference while passing order. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing following Order :-

¶17

(I) It will be open for the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice dated 25^th April, 2013 on or before 27^th June, 2013. The petitioner shall produce all documents relied upon by him along with the reply;

¶18

(II) The petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner of the first respondent - Corporation on 28^th June, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. The Commissioner may himself hear the petitioner or may appoint any other senior Municipal officer to hear the petitioner;

¶19

wp 4528-2013

¶20

sat 3/4

¶21

(III) It will be open for respondent nos.5 and 5A to appear before the concerned Municipal officer and to make submissions;

¶22

(IV) On hearing the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 and 5A, the Commissioner or the officer nominated by the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks from 28^th June, 2013;

¶23

(V) The order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner;

¶24

(VI) Till the communication of the order, the impugned notice dated 25^th April, 2013 (Exhibit I to the petition) shall not be acted upon. This protection will be available to the petitioner subject to condition that the petitioner shall not create any third party rights and shall not part with possession of the property in his possession;

¶25

(VII) If the order passed 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 a copy of the order is served on the petitioner;

¶26

(VIII) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on

¶27

wp 4528-2013

¶28

sat 4/4

¶29

merits and all issues shall be decided by the concerned Municipal officer;

¶30

(IX) We also make it clear that even respondent nos.5 and 5A are entitled to produce necessary documents;

¶31

(X) It is clarified that this order will not prevent the petitioner from filing a Civil suit for establishing the rights allegedly claimed by him;

¶32

(XI) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this Order.

¶33

( A.R. JOSHI, J.)

¶34

(A.S. OKA, J.)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani v. the Pune 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

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.

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

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