Disposed

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat v. the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2014WP/6098/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ for demolition of an alleged illegal structure on state-owned land. The High Court held that a writ for demolition cannot be issued due to the pendency of a civil eviction suit, but directed the Planning Authority to consider the illegal construction application affording the accused a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Second respondent directed to consider petitioner's application and decide on alleged illegal construction after hearing the third respondent.

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

81-wp-6098-12.doc

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.6098 of 2012.

¶6

Vijaysingh Krishnaro Parbat … Petitioner V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr Abhijit M. Adagule for the Petitioner. Mr V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr Dilip Bodake for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 9th July, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned AGP for the first respondent and the learned Counsel for the third respondent. 2) The prayer in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents (the State of Maharashtra and Kurudwadi Nagar Parishad) to take an action against the alleged illegal construction carried out by the third respondent on the property, more particularly described in prayer clause (a) of the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the reply given by the Information Officer of the second Respondent on 3^rd May, 2011. In the reply, it is stated that no permission has been granted to the third respondent for carrying out construction on the property in question. He invited our attention to the letter dated 7^th May, 2011 addressed by the petitioner to the Chief Officer of the second respondent by which he called upon the Chief Officer to take an action of demolition.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for eviction against the third

1 of 2

81-wp-6098-12.doc

respondent which is still pending. His submission is that on two occasions, an application for injunction was made by the petitioner in relation to the same structure and the Civil Court declined to grant any relief. He submitted that the third respondent had disputed the title of the petitioner and it is his contention that the structure is on the property vested in the first respondent.

¶18

The second respondent is served with the notice. None has appeared for the second respondent.

¶19

Considering pendency of a civil suit between the petitioner and the third respondent, a writ as prayed in terms of prayer clause (a) cannot be issued. However, the second respondent being the Planning Authority will have to consider the application of the petitioner dated 7^th May, 2011 and will have to decide whether the third respondent has carried out any illegal construction without obtaining a proper permission. If it is found that an illegal construction has been carried out, the second respondent Nagar Parishad will have to initiate an action in accordance with law. Needless to say that no action can be taken as regards the unauthorized structure without following the principles of natural justice and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the third respondent. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of.

¶20

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶21

2 of 2

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat v. the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat v. the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept 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

Pandurang Babu Mulik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Babu Mulik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammed Hussain Khan Vs Shri. Bharat Dattatraya Chaudhari and Anr.

Sidhava Sangappa Munale Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny NO.1, Solapur, through Member Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Jaysing Bandu Kamble Vs the Tahsildar, Karad and Ors.

M/S. Prime Toll and Metal Recoveries Private Limited, through Director, Me. Iqbal Hussain Khan Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Anr.