Dismissed

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2015WP/12911/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged demolition notices for illegal buildings in Navi Mumbai. Court rejected the writ petition, accepted undertakings to vacate by Dec 31, 2015, and appointed a Court Receiver to take symbolic possession pending demolition.

What did the court decide?

Undertakings accepted; demolition stayed until Dec 31, 2015; Court Receiver appointed for symbolic possession; forceful possession to be taken if vacated later.

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

904-WPST32436-15.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 32436 OF 2015

¶4

Kamod Shankar Patil & Ors.…Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.…Respondents

¶5

Mr. Saurabh Dilip Butala for the Petitioners.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ankit Kulkarni i/b Little & Co. for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. S. S. Deshpande, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay,

¶6

present.

¶7

CORAM: A. S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ. DATED: 10th December 2015

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.Leave granted to the Petitioners to correct the typographical
errors in the names of the Petitioner Nos. 4, 37 and 73. Amendment
to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.

¶10

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the
learned AGP for the Respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd Respondent. The challenge in this Petition is
to the notices issued under sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 by the

¶11

1 of 5

¶12

904-WPST32436-15.DOC

¶13

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2nd
Respondent) (“MIDC”).

¶14

3.In this Petition, the notice is in respect of the building,
Ambika Apartment at Digha, Navi Mumbai. In this Petition, the
Petitioners have filed undertakings which are taken on record and
marked “X1” (collectively) for identification.

¶15

4.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners accepted
that the building subject matter of this Petition, has been
constructed without obtaining any Development Permission from
the Planning Authority. Undertakings have been given by the
Petitioners to vacate the premises in their respective possession on
or before 31st December 2015 and to hand over the vacant and
peaceful possession thereof to the MIDC. The Petitioners have
stated that they have no objection if the Court Receiver, High
Court, Mumbai is appointed in respect of the premises occupied by
them. Undertakings are also given that the Petitioners will not
transfer and/or alienate and will not part with possession of their
respective premises in the aforesaid buildings.

¶16

5.After tendering the undertakings, a submission was made
across the bar that considering the difficulties faced by some of the
Petitioners, the time to vacate may be extended till the end of
February 2016.

¶17

6.While dealing with the Petitions challenging the action of
demolition in respect of illegal buildings constructed in Navi
Mumbai, this Court has consistently granted time to vacate till 31st

¶18

2 of 5

¶19

904-WPST32436-15.DOC

¶20

December 2015. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be accepted.
Only in the cases where individual flat purchasers or occupants
make out a case of extreme hardship, such a prayer can be
considered. The Petitioners have taken premises in the building
knowing fully well that the building has been constructed without
obtaining any Development Permission from the Planning
Authority and that also on the public property vesting in MIDC.

¶21

7.As the Petitioners have accepted that the construction of the
building is illegal and as they have given unconditional undertakings
to vacate the premises in their respective possession, the time to
vacate till 31st December 2015 deserves to be granted.

¶22

8.In view of the acceptance of the illegality of the building, the
challenge in this Petition to the action under sub-section (1) of
Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966
does not survive.

¶23

9.As the Petitioners have no objection for appointment of the
Court Receiver, we propose to appoint the Court Receiver, High
Court with a direction to the Court Receiver to take symbolic
possession of the said building and premises therein.

¶24

10.Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following
order:

¶25

(a)The Writ Petition is rejected;

¶26

3 of 5

¶27

904-WPST32436-15.DOC

¶28

(b) The undertakings of the Petitioners, marked “X1” (collectively) are accepted. In view of the undertakings, the action of demolition shall not be taken by the MIDC on the basis of the impugned notices till 31st December 2015;

¶29

(c) We appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai as a Receiver of the building subject matter of this Petition. The Court Receiver shall take symbolic possession of all the premises in the building;

¶30

(d) The Petitioners have already deposited a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the Office of the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai;

¶31

(e) In the event of the failure of the Petitioners to vacate the premises in their respective possession and hand over possession thereof to the MIDC on or before 31st December 2015, the Court Receiver shall take forcible possession of the premises in possession of the Petitioners with the police assistance;

¶32

(f) On an application made by the Office of the Court Receiver, the local Police Station shall grant necessary police protection and assistance to the Office of the Court Receiver;

¶33

(g) After the Court Receiver takes physical possession of the premises in the building subject matter of this

¶34

4 of 5

¶35

904-WPST32436-15.DOC

¶36

Petition, he shall hand over the possession to the
MIDC to enable the MIDC for taking the action of
demolition;

¶37

(h) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶39

(A. S. OKA, J.)

¶40

5 of 5

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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. Jeevanrao Vishwanathrao Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Kisan Shankar Sakpal and Ors. Vs the Panchayat Samiti, Mahad, through Block Development Officer and Ors.

Shri. Chhagan Adnyan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Babaji Rane Vs Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shaikh Mohd Shabbir Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Other