Disposed

Shri. Dharmaraj D. Thakur v. the City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2015WP/630/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions filed regarding impugned notices. The Court directed the CIDCO officer to decide pending regularization applications expeditiously within two months. Ad-interim relief on construction status quo was continued subject to specific conditions until orders were communicated, with the merits kept open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending regularization applications within two months and maintain status quo on constructions conditionally until orders.

Shri. Dharmaraj D. Thakur Vs the City and Industrial… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

wp628-630

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2012

¶5

Sofan Fakir Thakur ...Petitioner
vs.
The City and Industrial
Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd. And others...Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

 WRIT PETITION NO.630 OF 2012

¶8

Dharmaraj D. Thakur ...Petitioner
vs.
The City and Industrial
Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Ltd. And others...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Sanjay Gawade for the petitioner in both
petitions
Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
both petitions
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent No.4 in both
petitions

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.K.MENON, JJ.
 DATE : JANUARY 30, 2015

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1The learned counsel for the City and Industrial
Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for
short `CIDCO') states that applications made by the
petitioners in these petitions for regularization
are pending.

¶13

2The very fact that the petitioners in these

¶14

wp628-630

¶15

¶16

petitions have applied for regularization shows that
the petitioners have accepted that the constructions
subject matter of the impugned notices have been
carried out without obtaining the permission of the
Competent Authority.

¶17

3As the applications are pending, we dispose of
the petitions by passing the following order:

¶18

(I)We direct the appropriate Officer of the
CIDCO to decide the pending applications for
regularization made by the petitioners as
expeditiously as possible and in any event
within a period of two months from today;

¶19

(II) The orders passed on the applications for regularization be communicated to the petitioners;

¶20

(III)Till the date of communication of the said
orders to the petitioners, ad-interim relief
granted by this Court on 23rd January 2012 shall
continue to operate subject to condition that
even the petitioners shall maintain status quo
in all respects in respect of the constructions
subject matter of the impugned notices;

¶21

(IV)If the orders passed on the applications
for regularization be adverse to the
petitioners, the ad-interim relief shall
continue to operate for a period of four weeks
from the date of communication of the said
orders to the petitioners;

¶22

(V)All contentions on merits of the
controversy are kept open;

¶23

wp628-630

¶24

¶25

(VI) The petitions are disposed of;

¶26

(VII) All concerned to act upon an authenticated

¶27

copy of this order.

¶28

(A.K.MENON,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Shri. Dharmaraj D. Thakur v. the City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Dharmaraj D. Thakur v. the City and Industrial Development Corporation 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

Gajendra Vitthaldas Khedekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Narhari Sitaram Jirval Vs Shri. Bhanudas H. Palve and Ors.

Sindhu Sadashiv Arane @ Rekha Hiraman Shinde Vs the Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sofan Fakir Thakur Vs the City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Mukesh Shaligram Gondkar Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Shri Ganpat Vithal Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Home (State Excise) and Ors.