Disposed

Vishnu Babaji Rane v. Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2016WP/1765/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition challenging the demolition of a Category C-1 building. Accepting respondent statements evicting the petitioner requires due legal process, the court ordered restoration of electricity supply and dismissal of the suit without adjudicating ownership, keeping contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Electricity supply restored; petitioner occupies at own risk; writ petition disposed of.

Vishnu Babaji Rane Vs Municipal Commissioner and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

oswp1765

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1765 OF 2015

¶5

Vishnu Babaji Rane
vs.

¶6

Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Anr.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.A.D.Khillare for the Petitioner
Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Ms Shobha
Ajitkumar for the respondents

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 C.V.BHADANG,JJ.

¶11

 DATE : JANUARY 4, 2016

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned senior counsel for the respondents.
The learned senior counsel for the respondents
states that the building in which the premises
claimed by the petitioner are situated has been
declared as Category `C-1' building and accordingly,
the Mumbai Municipal Corporation will take steps in
accordance with law for demolition of the building.
He states that the Municipal Corporation shall
follow due process of law for dispossessing the
petitioner and the other occupants of the building.
He states that in terms of the ad-interim order
dated 3rd April 2014, electric supply to the
premises of the petitioner will be restored through
`Garlic Garage'. He states that as far as electric
supply is concerned, status quo ante will be
restored as on the date on which the electric supply
was disconnected.

¶14

¶15

oswp1765

¶16

2We accept the said statements. He states that
the electric supply will be continued till the due
of process of law is followed by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation for evicting the petitioner.

¶17

3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has no title
in respect of the building in question. However,
this issue need not be gone into at this stage in
view of the categorical statement made by the
learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation. By
accepting the said statements, we dispose of the
writ petition. However, all contentions of the
petitioner are kept open. Needless to add that as
the building in question has been categorized as
`C-1', the petitioner will continue to occupy the
premises on his own risk.

Vishnu Babaji Rane v. Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Babaji Rane v. Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

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

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Jeevanrao Vishwanathrao Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Kisan Shankar Sakpal and Ors. Vs the Panchayat Samiti, Mahad, through Block Development Officer and Ors.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shaikh Mohd Shabbir Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Other

Ayurved Shikshan Mandals Dharmarth Ashtang Ayurved Rugnalaya, through Secretary, Dr. M. H. Paranjap Vs the Divisional Health Officer,, Divisional Office NO.3 (Health), Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.