Partly allowed

Ataur Rahman Khan S/O Zulfiquar Khan and Others v. the State of Maha., through Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of Maha. Mumbai and Other

Bombay HC27 Oct 2016MCA/1059/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application filed to correct a typographical error in the year from 1972 to 1792 and to consider the argument regarding heritage notification requirements. Court allowed the year correction but rejected the other ground as academic given the finding that only the Tomb and Gujargate possess heritage status.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to correct the year from 1972 to 1792 was allowed; rest of the review application rejected.

Ataur Rahman Khan S/O Zulfiquar Khan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

mca1059.16.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

Misc. Civil Application No.1059/2016 (For Review) in Writ Petition No.5056/2016 (D)

¶5

Ataur Rehman Khan s/o Zulfiquar Khan & ors vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & ors.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

- - - - Mr. M. V. Samarth, Advocate for applicants-petitioners. Mrs.Bharti Dangre, G..P for non applicant-respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for non applicant-Municipal Corporation.

¶10

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 27, 2016

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners has moved this Court for review of the order on the following grounds:

¶13

(i) In paragraph 8 of the order in the fourth line, year “1972” has been erroneously mentioned and it ought to have been “1792”.

¶14

(ii) In paragraph nos.30-C to 30-G, though a specific argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioners that regulation no.3.1 of the Heritage Regulations requires a notification for deletion, the said arguments and it has not been considered by this Court.

¶15

Insofar as the first ground is concerned, we find that there is a typographical mistake. It appears that the stenographer has interchanged “7” and “9”. In that view of the matter, the prayer insofar as changing of the year “1972” to “1792”, is allowed.

¶16

mca1059.16.odt

¶17

¶18

Insofar as the second ground is concerned, on the basis of the factual material placed before us, we have come to the conclusion that it is only the Tomb (Samadhi) and Gujargate, which are having the status of heritage structure. We have also come to a considered conclusion that rest of the building including the shops, etc. do not enjoy the heritage status. In view of this factual finding, since no structure which, in our view enjoys the heritage status, is being affected by the proposed expansion, there was no occasion to consider the legal submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners. It is the settled position of law that the Court should avoid in going into the academic questions unless the facts warrant so.

¶19

In that view of the matter, the review application, insofar as the second ground is concerned, in our considered opinion, is without any substance. Hence, except what is allowed herein, rest of the review application stands rejected. No order as to costs.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

kahale

Ataur Rahman Khan S/O Zulfiquar Khan and Others v. the State of Maha., through Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of Maha. Mumbai and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ataur Rahman Khan S/O Zulfiquar Khan and Others v. the State of Maha., through Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of Maha. Mumbai and Other

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

Gopalsing S/O Dattasing Guar Vs Shri. Kishor Bhoyar Member Secretary and Another

Shri. Bhaurao S/O. Maroti Gaidhane and Others Vs Union of India, Thr. Sect. Ministry of Environment and Forest Dept., New Delhi and Others

Pratik Yashvant Hinge and Anothers Vs the Chief General Manager (Hr), Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., Mumbai and Others

Dr. Mukesh Hariram Waghmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Anoth

Grampanchat Chapdoh (Rehabilitated) Thr. Sarpanch, Yavatmal Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Mukesh Hariram Waghmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Anoth