Petitioner trust challenged a Removal Notice under the MRTPA. The bench dismissed the petition because the trust admitted lack of building permission and lack of land ownership, deeming the offending structure unregularizable.
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.
Sr.No.903
WP 3531.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3531 OF 2016
Chatrapati Kala Krida & Sanskrutik Pratishtan (Regd.), Nerul, Navi Mumbai ….Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakde, AGP for the State. Mr. D. A. Athawale, advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S. V. Marne, advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATE : 20th JULY, 2016.
P. C. :
Heard learned counsel and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties.
Shubhada S Kadam 1/2
Sr.No.903
WP 3531.16
building permission. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner is not the owner of the land, on which, the temple is built. In the circumstances, the offending structure cannot be regularised also. We, therefore, are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 2/2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chatrapati Kala Krida & Sanskrutik Pratishtan (Regd.)
The State of Maharashtra
An ors.
Ranjit More
Anuja Prabhudesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
