Disposed

M/S. Patel Developers and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2015WP/977/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging municipal dispossession and seeking interim restraint on allotment. Noting admitted illegal construction, the court expedited the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority but granted no substantive or interim relief, keeping merits open.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal within three months; no interim relief granted to restrain allotment; merits kept open.

M/S. Patel Developers and Anr. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

ash

wp(l)-453.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.453 OF 2015

¶5

M/s. Patel Developers and Another. .. Petitioners Vs

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Others.

¶7

Shri Shardul Singh i/by Shruti Desai & Co for the Petitioners. Shri J.S. Saluja, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Ms. Yamuna Parekh for BMC.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 9TH APRIL 2015

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. His

¶11

only submission is that the hearing of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority be expedited and till the Appeal is disposed of, the Municipal Corporation should be restrained from allotting the premises to any third party or from creating any third party interests.

¶12

In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no substantive challenge to the action of the Municipal Corporation of dispossessing the Petitioners. The interim relief can be granted only in the aid of final relief and there is no final relief claimed of restoration of possession.

¶13

ash

¶14

2 wp(l)-453.15

¶15

Moreover, it is an admitted position that the Petitioners have constructed illegal construction of atleast 1 and ½ floors without obtaining requisite permission of the Competent Authority.

¶16

Though, the Appeal deserves to be expedited, no other relief can be granted to the Petitioners for the reasons recorded above.

¶17

Hence, we pass the following order.

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

(a) We direct the Petitioners or their authorized representative to appear before the Appellate Authority on 27^th April 2015 at 3.00 p.m.;

¶20

(b) The Petitioners shall produce an authenticated copy

¶21

of this order before the Appellate Authority;

¶22

(c) The Appellate Authority shall decide the Appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from 27^th April 2015;

¶23

(d) All contentions on merits are kept open;

¶24

(e) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶25

(f) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of

¶26

this order.

¶27

(A.P.BHANGALE, J)

M/S. Patel Developers and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Patel Developers and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

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

Sunil Babani H.U.F. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 53 Ors. and Sunny Manoj Patel and 2 Others (Applicant)

Mr.Gopalkrishna Mandir Dindori Public Trust Thr.Mr.G.N.Agnihotri(Dead)Thr.Mr.Sharad Govind Agnihtri Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

The Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department Vs Ess Infraproject Private Limited and Anr.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs the Chief Secretary Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Smt. Hirabai Gopala Patil Vs Shri Rajaram Mane, the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Ors.

Mr. Pradeep Kacher Patil Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.