Disposed

Manish Pravinchandra Shah v. Asstt. Engineer (B and F) N Ward and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2016WP/836/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding regularisation of flats constructed in 2001. Pending an intended appeal, the interim protection granted previously was continued, directing petitioners to file the appeal within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of interim order during pendency of appeal; direction to file appeal within three weeks.

Manish Pravinchandra Shah Vs Asstt. Engineer (B and F) N… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WPL.818/2016-WPL.715/2016(931)

¶2

mnm

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 818 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 715 OF 2016

¶5

Manish Pravinchandra Shah

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Asstt. Engineer (B & F) N-Ward and Ors....Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Rajeev Matkar for the petitioners Ms. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent BMC

¶10

Mr. Umashankar Upadhayay AGP for State Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 818 of 2016

¶11

Mr. M.A. Sayyed AGP for Respondent State in Writ Petition No.715 of 2016.

¶12

CORAM : V.M.KANADE &

¶13

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.^ND MARCH, 2016

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that their application for regularisation has been rejected by the Corporation. It is submitted that through this petition the petitioners proposes to file an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. It is submitted that this Court has granted interim protection to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 715 of 2016. It is submitted that said interim protection may be continued

¶16

2 WPL.818/2016-WPL.715/2016(931)

¶17

during the pendency of the appeal, which is to be filed by the petitioners.

¶18

It is not in disputed that the flats in question were constructed in 2001. It is an admitted position that no demolition work has commenced so far. Taking into consideration the fact that the flats are in existence since 2001 and are occupied by the petitioners. Secondly since alternate remedy is available for the petitioners by filing an appeal. We dispose of this petition reserving the right of the petitioners to take recourse to the alternate remedies available to them. It is clarified that the interim order is passed in Writ Petition No. 715 of 2016 shall continue during the pendency of the appeal. It is further clarified that the petitioners shall file an appeal within 3 weeks. If appeal is not filed within 3 weeks the interim order shall stand vacated without intimation to Court. The appeal, if filed, shall be disposed off expeditiously by the Competent Authority on merits as well as in accordance with law. With these directions both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)

Manish Pravinchandra Shah v. Asstt. Engineer (B and F) N Ward and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Pravinchandra Shah v. Asstt. Engineer (B and F) N Ward 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

Mr. Vikram Vishnu Garasia Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, and 7 Ors.

Rashid Khan and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and 2 Ors.

Cheru C. Pulikkottil and Ors. Vs Bommbay Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. through Officer, Mr. Vijaykumar Patil and Anr. Vs National Federation of Urban Co-Op. Bank and Credit Soc. Ltd. through CEO and Ors.

K. Ravi Kiran (Secretary) and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Senior Inspector of Police

Vijaykumar Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.