Remanded

Hamid Badshah Rafique Shaikh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Riyaz Ahmed Abdul Sattar Khan (Intervener)

Bombay HC20 Dec 2014CHSW/133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bench quashed the notice under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1956 issued for removal of a shed. The matter was remanded to the designated officer to reconsider the issue after hearing both parties and reviewing the available record, with status quo maintained for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice and communication were quashed and set aside; the matter was remanded to the designated officer with status quo maintained for two weeks.

Hamid Badshah Rafique Shaikh Vs the Municipal Corporation… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

YBG

chsw133-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.133 OF 2014 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2547 OF 2014

¶6

Hamid Bhadshah Rafique Shaikh .. Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.S.P.Shrivastava for petitioner Mr.Ashok Pande for applicant Ms. Vandana Mahadik for Corporation

¶8

CORAM : NARESH PATIL & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 20th December 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] The petitioner had filed civil suit earlier bearing S.C.Suit No.189 of 2009 which was decided by the order dated 18th September 2010. The Civil Court passed the following order:-

¶11

“ Suit is hereby decreed with cost.

¶12

It is hereby declared that defendants have no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and they are perpetually restrained from doing so over the suit premises i.e. in shed, admeasuring 12' x 8' situate towards western side of plot No.230, Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai 400010 otherwise than by following

YBG

chsw133-14

due process of law.”

2] The petitioner is question the notice issued under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1956. The petitioner received a notice under section 55 of the MRTP Act. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice. By a communication dated 20th February 2014, the designated officer directed removal of the said shed within seven days.

¶18

3] We have heard the submissions of the applicant in chamber summons who claims to be the owner of the said shed. The learned Counsel for the Corporation states that the said shed/structure is illegal. A suit is also filed by the applicant in the chamber summons against the petitioner herein, which is pending.

¶19

4] We have heard the parties. On perusal of the record, documents placed on record and hearing of submissions advanced by the Corporation, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the designated officer for reconsideration. The parties are entitled to put up their case before the designated officer, including, the material which is already collected by the Corporation.

YBG

chsw133-14

5] The impugned notice and the communication issued by the designated officer both are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the designated officer. The designated officer, after considering the record made available and after hearing parties, shall pass fresh order. All contentions are kept open. In case the decision of designated officer is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of communication by the parties. Till then, status quo

¶24

to be maintained.

¶25

( NARESH PATIL, J.)

Hamid Badshah Rafique Shaikh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Riyaz Ahmed Abdul Sattar Khan (Intervener)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid Badshah Rafique Shaikh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Riyaz Ahmed Abdul Sattar Khan (Intervener)

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. Pritam Jaykumar Gandhi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ms. Apeksha Subhash Kadam Vs the Principal, Ganga Education Societys Ayurved College and Ors.

Shri. Pritam Jaykumar Gandhi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kuldeep Singh Gurudayal Singh Matharoo Vs the Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Hiren Shamji Ravaria Vs Shri. Vishnu Chimaji Mahadik and Ors.

The Maarashtra Federation of Univrtisy and College Teachers Orgn.and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.