Allowed

Qusay Shaikh Yusufbhai Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2017WP/1392/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and charge sheet under the MRTP Act, holding that no offence was made out as the requisite notice under Section 53 was not served to the petitioner, thereby precluding the opportunity to apply for toleration of unauthorized structures.

What did the court decide?

The FIR (C.R.II-I of 2015) and charge sheet were quashed and set aside via a writ of certiorari.

Qusay Shaikh Yusufbhai Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

crwp1392

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1392 OF 2015

¶5

Qusay Shaikh Yusufbhai Kothari
vs.
The State of Maharashtra

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Mr.Sachin Ramrao Pawar for the Petitioner
Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the respondent

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
 DATE : MARCH 23, 2017

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1Rule. The learned APP waives service for the
first respondent. Forthwith taken up for final
disposal.

¶12

2The prayer in this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is for quashing the FIR
and charge sheet filed for the offence punishable
under section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act,1966 (for short `MRTP Act'). The
first informant is the Talathi of village Washind
who is in the employment of the State of
Maharashtra. In his statement, he has stated that
an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Bhiwandi directing him to take action of
registration of the offence under section 52 of the
MRTP Act as regards illegal construction on land
bearing Gat No.84-A admeasuring 5000 sq meters at
village Khativali, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane.

¶13

2 crwp1392

¶14

All that he stated in the statement is that he
visited the spot and a Panchnama was drawn. It was
found that the construction of buildings consisting
of ground plus three floors was made without
permission of the Urban Development Department and
without seeking permission for non-agricultural use
from the Collector.

¶15

3After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned APP for the State, we
find that absolutely no offence has been made out
under the MRTP Act.

¶16

4The learned APP has submitted a report dated
23rd March 2017 which is taken on record and markex
`X-1' for identification. The report discloses that
no notice under section 53 of the MRTP Act was
served to the petitioner and only a notice under
sub-section 3 of section 45 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code,1960 was served to the petitioner.

¶17

5Thus, the petitioner was never called upon to
remove unauthorized construction by issuing notice
under sub-section 1 of section 53 of the MRTP Act.
Had such notice been given to the petitioner, he
would have always applied for tolerating the
structure. Hence, the petition must succeed.

¶18

6 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶19

(I) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

¶20

3 crwp1392

¶21

“(b)That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue writ of certiorari and any other
appropriate writ/order and further be pleased
to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.II-
I of 2015, lodged with the Shahpur Police
Station, Thane against the petitioner as
accused.”

¶22

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Qusay Shaikh Yusufbhai Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qusay Shaikh Yusufbhai Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Binny Shipping Limited and 3 Ors. Vs Bank of India and Anr.

Mrs. Vimal @Dipu Santoshkumar Karekar Vs Mr. Santoshkumar Manohar Karekar

Narsing Vishnu Disale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arvind Devji Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suhasini Keshav Salvi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kartik Kandaswamy Devendra Arundudhiyar Vs the State of Maharashtra