Disposed

Darshan Developers and Anr. v. the District Collector Mumbai City

Bombay HC29 Apr 2013WP/910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice for explaining minor mineral extraction and a stop-work order. The Court directed the Collector to take a final decision treating the petition as a reply and stayed the stop-work direction.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to treat petition copy as reply, take final decision within four weeks, and stay stop-work direction.

Darshan Developers and Anr. Vs the District Collector… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WPL.978.2013.29.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 978 OF 2013

¶4

DARSHAN DEVELOPERS AND ANR. :- PETITIONERS VERSUS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MUMBAI CITY AND ORS. :- RESPONDENTS

¶5

Mr. S. V. Kadam, with Ms. Apeksha Sharma, i/b. M/s. Kadam and Co., for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. J. G. Reddy, for Respondent No. 1.

¶7

Ms. K. H. Mastkar, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶8

CORAM :- RANJIT MORE,J. DATED :- APRIL 29, 2013

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶11

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have challenged

¶12

the notice dated 5^th April, 2013 issued by Respondent No. 1,

¶13

directing them to give explanation as to how they are extracting minor minerals from the land, in contravention of the terms and

¶14

conditions of the lease deed. It is the stand of the Petitioners that

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶17

WPL.978.2013.29.doc

¶18

they have obtained development rights in respect of the land in question and they are carrying redevelopment on the same. The Petitioner was required to excavate the ground for piling work of the building and there is no question of extracting minor minerals from the land, as alleged by the Collector.

¶19

The learned AGP, for Respondent No. 1, submits that the Respondent No. 1 has issued the notice simpliciter, asking the Petitioner to give explanation and therefore, the Petition is premature. On the contrary, the Counsel for the Petitioner, however, points out that by the said notice, the Petitioner has been directed to stop the work of redevelopment on the land in question.

¶20

Having considered the submissions and having gone

¶21

through the impugned notice, I am of the view that the Petition can be disposed of directing Respondent No. 1 to take final decision in respect of the notice impugned in the present Petition by considering the copy of the present Petition as reply to the said notice. So far as Respondent No. 1's direction to the Petitioner to

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶24

WPL.978.2013.29.doc

¶25

stop work is concerned, the Counsel for Respondent No. 1 did not point out any provision under which such directions can be issued.

¶26

In the circumstances, the Petition is disposed of by passing following order:-

¶27

(a) The Respondent No. 1 shall treat copy of this Petition as reply to the notice dated 5^th April, 2013, which is impugned in the present Petition and take final decision in this regard after hearing the Petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Respondent No. 1 shall pass a speaking order.

¶28

(b) The Respondent No. 1's direction to the Petitioner to stop the work of redevelopment on the land in question shall remain stayed till the final decision on the notice impugned in this Petition is taken by Respondent No. 1.

¶29

(RANJIT MORE,J.)

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

J.V.Salunke,PA

Darshan Developers and Anr. v. the District Collector Mumbai City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Developers and Anr. v. the District Collector Mumbai City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Baburao Kajale Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Vescube Infrastructure Ltd.

Axis Capital Limited Cin No. U51900MH2005PLC157853 Vs ------------

Axis Securites Limited Cin No. U74992MH2006PLC163204 Vs -----

Mrs.Vijay Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Zenith Tins Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Gracy Louis Hendriques Vs State of Maharashtra