Dismissed

Smita Ramesh Gaikwad v. Afzal Supariwala and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2016PIL/71/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 226 sought a stay on illegal construction, demolition of towers exceeding six storeys, removal of shop units, and relief to maintain the status quo as a Public Interest Litigation. Addressing the dispute between Smita Ramesh Gaikwad and builders, the Court found that the respondents had obtained necessary clearance. The petition was dismissed as there was no substance i

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed accordingly. No stay, demolition, or restoration was granted.

Smita Ramesh Gaikwad Vs Afzal Supariwala and 3 Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

19pil71-14.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 71 OF 2014

¶5

Smita Ramesh Gaikwad … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Afzal Supariwala & Others. … Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Ms. Smita R. Gaikwad, the Petitioner -in-person.

¶10

Mr. Ketan Chotani i/by Mr. Jagdish M. Chodankar for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Nakul Jain i/by Mantar Shrivastava Associates for Respondent No.2.

¶12

Ms. Yamuna Parekh, Advocate for MCGM.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,JJ.

¶15

DATE : 22^nd AUGUST, 2016

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1 Heard Ms. Smita R. Gaikwad, the petitioner, appearing-in-person. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking following reliefs :

¶18

a) An interim relief in the form of stay may kindly be granted against further illegal construction works, on the plot no.105, by Afzal Supariwala and his assistant workers.

1/4

Borey

19pil71-14.odt

spb/

b) Kindly, upholding the government's constructions norms of six storeys, and kindly considering the environmental conditions around both of these illegal towers, one of Afzal Supariwala on the plot no. 105, and other of Shagun Constructions on the plot no. 134, may kindly be demolished upto the sixth storey.

¶24

c) Afzal Supariwala's illegally constructed commercial shops may kindly be demolished completely from this Residential Zone.

¶25

d) Afzal Supariwala's illegally constructed commercial bank may kindly not be allowed to exist in this residential Zone.

¶26

e) Afzal Supariwala's illegally constructed entry - exit gate may kindly be removed from its illegal position on the West, which is a narrow lane of 20 ft. only, and may kindly be restored to its legal and to its original position on the Sough, which is a road of about 40 ft.

¶27

f) Here, the paramount consideration is lives and properties of so many people in the surrounding area of these two illegal towards, Parel English School at only 20ft. from Shagun Constructions illegally constructed 18 storeyed tower and Parel English School at about 50 ft. from Afzal Supariwala's illegally constructed 23 storeyed

2/4

Borey

spb/

19pil71-14.odt

tower, 1 maidan on the South adjacent to Shagun Constructions' illegally constructed 18 storeyed tower, and 1 maidan on the North – East adjacent to Afzal Supariwala's illegally constructed 23 storeyed tower, considering all of these factors, this writ petition may kindly be converted into a public interest litigation.

¶33

g) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon.Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the present case.

¶34

2 Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Respondent No. 1, Respondent No.2 and also by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶35

3 The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have illegally constructed the tower in the island city in which there is reconstruction and/ or construction of building only upto 6^th Floor. It is also submitted by the Petitioner that no permission has been obtained by the said respondents from the Corporation

¶36

4 Both the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 have filed detail affidavits-in-reply, pointing out that the permission had been obtained by them from the Corporation. The Corporation has also filed affidavit-in-reply,

3/4

Borey

spb/ 19pil71-14.odt

stating therein that the building was constructed after permission was obtained from the competent authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the present PIL has been filed almost after five years after the buildings have been constructed. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, who is appearing-in-person that she had filed complaint before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court and has made representation to the Corporation.

¶41

5 In our view, we are satisfied that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have obtained necessary clearance from the Corporation and permission was granted to accommodate shop owners in the building in view of D.C.R. 33 (7). There is no substance, therefore, in the allegation made by the Petitioner in this petition.

¶42

6 Hence, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶43

(MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,J.) (V. M. KANADE,J.)

¶44

4/4

¶45

Borey

Smita Ramesh Gaikwad v. Afzal Supariwala and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smita Ramesh Gaikwad v. Afzal Supariwala and 3 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

Raju Ramdas Mankar Organizing Member of Vidharba Khandesh Matang Seva Singh Vs the Secretary, Covernment of Maharashtra and Anr.

Adv. Amit Kisanrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Deepak Pradhan Vs the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Shri. Mallappa Chanappa Chougale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raghunath Kottary Vs the Secretary Urban Development Department and 2 Ors.

Megha Raju Acharya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Rajaram Posiah Santh Vs Commissioner, Bruhan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika and 3 Ors.

Manoranjan Santosh Roy Vs International Monetary Fund and 5 Others

Raju Ramdas Mankar Organizing Member of Vidharba Khandesh Matang Seva Singh Vs the Secretary, Covernment of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs M/S. Alpha and Omega Diagnostics (India) Ltd. and 7 Ors.

United Labour Union Vs Air India Ltd.

Shri Pramod Satuppa Oulkar Vs 1. the Kini Karyat Shikshan Mandal, Kowad and Ors.

Purushottam Chandrakant Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Asad Ashraf Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.