Dismissed

Khaldun Mohd. Hasan Momin v. Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

Bombay HC13 Mar 2013WP/797/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a temporary injunction application in a suit concerning unauthorized construction. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the petitioner constructed far beyond the permitted area under the commencement certificate, making discretion to grant relief inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Khaldun Mohd. Hasan Momin Vs Bhiwandi Nizampura City… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-797.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.797 OF 2013

¶4

Khaldun Mohd. Hasan Momin : Petitioner. Versus Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner : Respondent.

¶5

Mr. A R Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. N R Bubna for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 13^th March 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 There is a concurrent finding recorded against the Petitioner who is the original Plaintiff as regards his entitlement to the discretionary relief of temporary injunction in respect of the unauthorized construction that he has put up.

¶9

2 Both the Courts below on the basis of the material on record have reached a conclusion that discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the Plaintiff. It is required to be noted that the Plaintiff was issued a commencement certificate by the Respondent in the year 2004 for carrying out

¶10

the construction on Survey No.23 Hissa No.4 Plot No.2. As per the said commencement certificate the construction permissible was to the extent of 464.16 sq.mtrs. However, the Plaintiff has put up the construction which is

¶11

much more than 843 sq.mtrs and whereas the Plaintiff was granted

1 of 2

lgc

wp-797.13

commencement certificate in respect of construction of one building, the Plaintiff has put up three wings i.e. A, B and C. It is for the said reason that the Respondent No.1 the Municipal Corporation had invoked Section 260(1) & (2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and issued a notice in respect of the said unauthorized construction. Thereafter an order seems to have been passed under subsection (2) of Section 260. This probably caused the Plaintiff to rush to the Civil Court and file the suit in question in which suit he had filed an application for temporary injunction.

¶16

3 The contention of the Plaintiff that he has not been served with the notice by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has not been accepted by both the Courts below. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts both the Courts below did not deem it fit to exercise the discretion.

¶17

4 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, in my view, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. No case for interdiction is therefore made about. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

lgc

Khaldun Mohd. Hasan Momin v. Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaldun Mohd. Hasan Momin v. Bhiwandi Nizampura 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. Gajanan M. Mhatre and Anr. Vs Shri. Sadashiv Laxman Bhandari and Ors.

Mr.Sanaulla Habibulla Khan and Ors. Vs Mr.Francis Xavier Rodrigues and Ors.

Shri. Anand Govind Panse Vs Laxman Govind Panse and Ors.

Krishnadev Shankar Chougule and Ors. Vs Sharad Krishnadev Chougule and Ors.

Shri Jaiwant Mahadu Kamthe and Anr. Vs Mrs. Ranjana Shankar Manare and Others

Mrs. Saraswati Dadaji Sarmalkar (Since Decd) through Lrs and Ors. Vs Eastern Ceramics Ltd. and Ors.