Disposed

Shrimati Kusumdevi Bhimrao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/7531/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A batch of writ petitions challenging a plan sanctioned by the Corporation was heard. The court directed the Corporation to reconsider objections in accordance with law after hearing additional representations, rather than deciding on merits immediately.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Corporation directed to reconsider objections and decide within four weeks after receiving additional representations.

Shrimati Kusumdevi Bhimrao Kale Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

4-wp7518.13gp.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7518 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Ahmad Jamalsab Shaikh ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7519 OF 2013

¶8

Shri Kisan Gopal Matre ….Petitioner.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶11

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7530 OF 2013

¶12

Shri Subhash Gopalrao Matre ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 7531 OF 2013

¶15

Shrimati Kusumdevi Bhimrao Kale ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶16

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7695 OF 2013

¶17

Shri Sachin Subhash Matre ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

1/7

4-wp7518.13gp.sxw

ssm 2

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7696 OF 2013

¶22

Shri Rajesh Subhashrao Matre ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7697 OF 2013 Smt. Rahibai Shankar Gaikwad ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7700 OF 2013 Shri Bismila Abbas Shaikh ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7703 OF 2013 Shri Ganpat Gopalrao Matre ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7704 OF 2013 Sou. Vimal Dnyaneshwar Matre ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶23

WITH

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 7705 OF 2013

¶25

Shri Malhari Balu Pawar ….Petitioner. Vs.

¶26

2/7

¶27

ssm 3 4-wp7518.13gp.sxw The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶28

WITH

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO. 7724 OF 2013

¶30

Sou. Mangal Uddhav Andhare ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶31

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8404 OF 2013

¶32

Ayodhya Rajesh Jadhav ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶33

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8405 OF 2013

¶34

Shri Vitthal Malhari Pawar ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8406 OF 2013 Shri Dadu Balu Pawar ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8407 OF 2013 Sunanda Bapu Kshirsagar ….Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶35

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8408 OF 2013

¶36

3/7

¶37

ssm 4 4-wp7518.13gp.sxw

¶38

Shri Dyaneshwar Gopalrao Matre ….Petitioner. Vs.

¶39

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶40

….Respondents.

¶41

WITH

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO. 10001 OF 2013

¶43

Shri Bhimrao K. Pawar & Anr. ….Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents.

¶44

Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the Petitioner/s in WP Nos.7518/2013, 7519/2013,7530/2013, 7531/2013, 7695/2013, 7696/2013, 7697/2013, 7700/2013, 7703/2013, 7704/2013, 7705/2013, 7724/2013 and 10001/2013.

¶45

Mr. Anilkumar Patil i/by Mr. Jitendra Gaikwad for the Petitioner/s in WP Nos.8404/2013, 8405/2013, 8406/2013, 8407/2013, 8408/2013 and for Respondent No.3 in WP No. 10001 of 2013.

¶46

Mr. S.M. Oak i/by Mr. Sagar Joshi for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in WP Nos. 7518/2013, 7519/2013,7530/2013, 7531/2013, 7695/2013, 7696/2013, 7697/2013, 7700/2013, 7703/2013, 7704/2013, 7705/2013, 7724/2013, 8404/2013, 8405/2013, 8406/2013, 8407/2013 and 8408/2013.

¶47

Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.1 in WP Nos. 7518/2013 and 10001 of 2013.

¶48

Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2 in 7519/2013, 7531/2013,7697/2013, 7700/2013, 7703/2013, 7724/2013, 8404/2013, 8405/2013, 8406/2013, 8407/2013 and 8408/2013.

¶49

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶50

N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 15 DECEMBER 2014.

¶51

P.C.:-

¶52

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶53

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶54

4/7

¶55

ssm 5 4-wp7518.13gp.sxw

¶56

2 The fact and the prayers so raised in the present Petitions, basically revolving around the alleged objections to the plan sanctioned by Respondent No.2 dated 26 July 2013. The learned counsel appearing for the parties make statement that the property in question is common and so also the objections.

¶57

3 The objections were not considered on merits by the Corporation and therefore, instead of deciding the same on merits, we are inclined to direct the Corporation to re-consider all these representations. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay, it is desirable that the Corporation to decide the objections in accordance with law. The Petitioner/s is/are permitted to file additional representations and written notes of arguments, if any, within one week from today. The other Respondents are also permitted to file reply to the same within one week thereafter and after receipt of such additional representations along with the documents, the Respondent-Corporation to decide the same within four weeks.

¶58

4 So far as the pending Suits as filed and referred are

¶59

5/7

¶60

ssm 6 4-wp7518.13gp.sxw

¶61

concerned, we are not expressing any view and it will be decided in accordance with law, specifically referring to the rights of way, as well as, the challenge to the Commencement Certificate. It is made further clear that the objections will be restricted to the violation of provisions of MRTP and Development Control Rules only and it is open to the Petitioner/s to agitate rest of the issues, in appropriate proceedings.

¶62

5 Resultantly the following order:-

¶63

ORDER

¶64

a) Impugned order dated 26 July 2013 is quashed and set aside. b) The Petitioner/s is/are permitted to file additional representations and written notes of arguments, if any, within one week from today. The other Respondents are also permitted to file reply to the same within one week thereafter.

¶65

c) The Respondent-Corporation to decide the objections in accordance with law, on receipt of such additional representations along with the documents, within four weeks thereafter.

¶66

6/7

¶67

ssm 7 4-wp7518.13gp.sxw d) All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. e) The protection granted by this Court on 26 August 2013 to continue till the decision of RespondentCorporation and two weeks thereafter, if adverse order is passed against the Petitioner/s.

¶68

f) All points are kept open, as the issues are required to be considered by all.

¶69

g) Rule is disposed of accordingly. h) There shall be no order as to costs. (N.M. JAMDAR, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶70

7/7

Shrimati Kusumdevi Bhimrao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrimati Kusumdevi Bhimrao Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Nishikant N. Bhojane and Ors. Vs Aawaaz Foundation

I Log Ports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Awaaz Foundation

Nishikant N. Bhojane and Ors. Vs Aawaaz Foundation

Balwant Dattu Bhosle Vs the Commissioner, Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Shri. Kisan Gopal Matre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Subhash Gopalrao Matre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.