Dismissed

Bipin Mohanlal Thakker and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Bruhanmumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2015WP/1311/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners withdrew the writ petition seeking a stay on a notice but desired direction for regularization of unauthorized construction. The Court dismissed the petition but directed the Municipal Corporation to decide the regularization application within two months and granted interim relief pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; Municipality directed to decide regularization application within two months; prior interim relief continues pending decision.

Bipin Mohanlal Thakker and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

oswp1311

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1311 OF 2014

¶5

Bipin Mohanlal Thakker & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Brihanmumbai & Ors....Respondents

¶6

Mr.Prathamesh Kamat i/b Vaibhav Patankar for the
petitioners
Ms K.R.Punjabi for the respondent No.1
Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP for State
Mr.Rakesh Mishra i/b H.S.Shekhawat for respondent
No.5

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.K.MENON, JJ.
 DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2015

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1On instructions of the petitioners, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners states that
the petitioners want to withdraw this petition as
they want to apply for regularization of the
construction subject matter of the impugned notice
dated 31st January 2014.

¶10

2As the petitioners are withdrawing this
petition and are willing to apply for
regularization, it is obvious that the petitioners
have accepted that the construction subject matter
of the impugned notice is unauthorised. The learned
counsel for the Municipal Corporation states that
the structure cannot be regularized. However, it is

¶11

¶12

oswp1311

¶13

for the concerned Authority to decide this issue
only after considering the application made by the
petitioners.

¶14

3Hence, we dispose of this petition by passing
the following order:

¶15

(I) Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn;

¶16

(II) If an application for regularization in a prescribed format is made by the petitioners through a licensed Architect within a period of one month from today, the Municipal Corporation shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date on which the application is made;

¶17

(III)The order passed on the application shall
be communicated to the petitioners or to the
licensed Architect of the petitioners;

¶18

(IV)Till the date of communication of the order
passed on the said application to the
petitioners or to their licensed Architect, ad-
interim relief granted on 17th February 2014 by
this Court shall continue to operate;

¶19

(V)If the order passed on the application made
by the petitioners be adverse to the
petitioners, ad-interim relief shall continue
to operate for a period of three weeks from the
date on which the order is served upon the
petitioners or their licensed Architect,
whichever is earlier;

¶20

(VI)On the failure of the petitioners to make

¶21

3 oswp1311

¶22

an application for regularization within a
period of one month from today, the protection
granted to the petitioners under this order
will come to an end and it will be open for the
Municipal Corporation to take action of
demolition;

¶23

(VII)We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on merits of the application for
regularization proposed to be made by the
petitioners;

¶24

(VIII)All concerned to act upon an authenticated
copy of this order.

Bipin Mohanlal Thakker and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Bruhanmumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Mohanlal Thakker and 2 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Bruhanmumbai and 3 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

M/S. Kausar Baug Co-Operative Housing Society and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Sampatrao Balkrishna Suryavanshi Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Nagaon and Ors.

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

R. v. Construction Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Parshuram Babaram Sawant Vs Union of India, through Ministry of External Affairs and Ors.