Disposed
Dyaneshwar P. Suranje v. the Assistant Commissioner N-Ward and 2 Ors.
Bombay HCWP/2116/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
mnm IN THE HIGH COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.2116/2015(10)
1
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2015
Dnyaneshwar P. Suranje ...Petitioner Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner N-Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. S.A. Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate for the BMC Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2016
P.C. :
Parties through their Counsel. The grievance of the
Petitioner is that in pursuance to the order passed by this
Court on 30th June, 2014 the Deputy Municipal Commissioner
has passed the impugned order dated 25th May, 2015, but in the said order there is ignorance to the consideration of the Government Resolution dated 14th May, 1998 in regard to which reference was made in the Petitioners' written
submissions, which was filed after the direction was issued by this Court. According to the Petitioner in regard to various
WP.2116/2015(10)
2
documents incorrect finding has been recorded holding them
to be irrelevant and not acceptable without assigning specific reason for the same.
Counsel and having gone through the impugned order we find that in the order there is no consideration of the entitlement of the Petitioner on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 14th May, 1998. According to the Petitioner even if there was no wall in between the two structures and
WP.2116/2015(10)
3
the same are being used for residential and commercial
purposes, the same are to be treated as two different structures and therefore, the Petitioner and his brother who is Respondent No.4 are entitled to have their rights in regard to the said structure.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
Dnyaneshwar P. Suranje
The Assistant Commissioner N-Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
SHANTANU S. KEMKAR
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court