Disposed

Buildarch Land Developers Private Limited and Another v. Municiapal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC20 Feb 2014WP/323/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's application for a commencement certificate, relying on a prior interim order staying a relevant circular of the Corporation issued in a connected matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for commencement certificate in accordance with law and having regard to the interim order in the connected matter.

Buildarch Land Developers Private Limited and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

kambli

wp-323-14

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 323 OF 2014

¶6

...

¶7

Buildarch Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶8

V/s

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

... Mr. Virag V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, i/b Kadam & Co. for the petitioners.

¶11

Ms.Sharmila Modle for the respondents.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 20 FEBRUARY 2014

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent-Municipal Corporation for Gr.Mumbai and its officers to consider the petitioner's application dated 30 August 2013 (Exh.I to the petition) for the project undertaken by the petitioner for redevelopment of plot No.103, C.S.No.1813, Shivaji Park Scheme, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the IOD granted to the petitioner on 14 May 2013 by the Municipal Corporation, the old building on the Plot No.103 has already been demolished and the petitioner applied for commencement certificate, but the same was not being considered in view of the Circular dated 14 August 2013 of the Municipal Corporation directing its officers to refer all development proposals to Mumbai Heritage Conservative Committee for its NOC, in view of Municipal Corporation's Circular dated 31 July 2012 declaring Shivaji Park as heritage precincts.

1 of 3

kambli

wp-323-14

In a group of petition being Writ Petition No.867 of 2013 (Dr.Arun R.Chitale and anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra) and other connected writ petitions pertaining to redevelopment of properties, interalia, in Shivaji Park and other areas, we have by order dated 3 February 2014 granted interim stay of operation of the Circular dated 14 August 2013 of the Municipal Corporation in the following terms:-

¶22

“In view of the above, we are clearly of the view that the Circular dated 14 August 2013 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation requiring proposal for redevelopment under Regulations 33(6), 33(7), 33(8), 33(9) and 33(10) of the DCR 1991 of every building to be sent to Mumbai HCC even if they are proposed to be declared as Grade I or Grade II heritage buildings in the Notice dated 31 July 2012 published by the Municipal Corporation is not sustainable. Therefore, the Circular dated 14 August 2013 is stayed to the above extent.”

¶23

In the above premise, nothing further is required to be done in this matter, except to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 30 August 2013 (Exh.I to the petition) for commencement certificate in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the aforesaid interim order dated 3 February 2014 in Writ Petition No.867 of 2013 and connected matters.

2 of 3

kambli

wp-323-14

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms with liberty to the petitioner to apply in case of any difficulty.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

Buildarch Land Developers Private Limited and Another v. Municiapal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buildarch Land Developers Private Limited and Another v. Municiapal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

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

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod Vs Mr. Sanjay Vinayak @ Balasaheb Deshpande

athecommissioner of central excise,mum-iii Vs m/s n.t.b. international Pvt. Ltd.

Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income TAX-8

Shridhar B. Shukla Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-7, Pune and Ors.

M/S. Amrut Ornaments, Prop. Sh. Saheblal Umashankar Sharama and Anr. Vs Honble Settlement Commission for Customs and Central Excise and Anr.

Commissioner of Central Excise , Pune Ii, Pune Vs M/S Sulaki Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. , Ratnagiri