Dismissing a writ petition seeking demolition of structures, the Court held that it could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when title to the property was disputed and a civil suit was pending between the parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
bsb 1
WP1659.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 2013
Alex Paulo Cos. & ors.
… Petitioners
v/s
Vasai Virar Municipal Corpn. & ors. … Respondents
Mr.Kapil P. Shetye for the petitioners.
Mr.Atul G. Damle, senior advocate for the Resp. Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Mahesh Rawool i/by Kayval P. Shah for the Resp. Nos.3 and 4.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C. V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2015
P.C.:
Heard.
By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent Corporation to demolish the bungalows illegally constructed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the plot of the petitioners.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted. The petitioners have instituted a suit against the respondent Nos.3 and
bsb 2
WP1659.13.doc
4, restraining them from making illegal construction on the plot in question. It is the case of the petitioners that, though the Trial Court had granted an injunction in favour of the petitioners, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 carried on the illegal construction. If the order of the Trial Court has been violated by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioners can take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, we find that both the parties i.e. the petitioners on one hand and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other, are claiming title to the said property. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are the owners of the same, whereas, it is the case of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 that, they are the owners of the same. Both the parties have relied on certain documents to substantiate their title. It would not be possible in the facts of this case to direct the respondent Corporation to demolish the structure constructed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the title to the said property is in dispute and admittedly the matter between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 is pending before the Civil Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the demolition of a structure when title to the property is disputed and a civil suit is pending.
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to demolish an illegal structure when both parties claim title to the property.
Alex Paulo Cos.
Vasai Virar Municipal Corpn.
Vasanti A. Naik
C. V. Bhadang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
