Disposed

Mr. Ramesh Bajaj and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2017WP/2208/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to diligently defend pending appeal and suit regarding unauthorized construction. Demolition is to proceed only after final orders are passed in those proceedings. Petition disposed on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Corporation to defend pending appeal and suit; further demolition action to follow final outcome of those proceedings.

Mr. Ramesh Bajaj and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(4)-WP-2208-14.doc .

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2208 OF 2014

¶4

Mr. Ramesh Bajaj and another ..Petitioners Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rushil Mehta i/by Mr. Jitendra J. Shah for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Joel Carlos a/w Ms. Pallavi Thakar for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – MCGM.

¶7

Mr. Som Sankar Sinha for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶8

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 26^th SEPTEMBER, 2017

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] A prayer, as made in the Petition, is for a direction to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith take action against Respondent

¶11

Nos.3 to 5 under the provisions of the MRTP Act.

¶12

2] It appears that it was the contention of the Petitioners that Respondent Nos.3 to 5 were indulging in illegal commercial activities on the ground, 2^nd , 5^th and 6^th floor of the building known as Shiv Sadan.

¶13

3] An affidavit has been filed by one B. S. Momale, Assistant Engineer of the Respondent – Corporation, stating therein that the BGP. 1 of 2

¶14

(4)-WP-2208-14.doc .

¶15

Respondent has demolished the unauthorized construction as was found to be carried out by the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is further stated that insofar as other unauthorized structure which is required to be demolished is concerned, the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have filed an Appeal under Section 47 of the MRTP Act before the Appellate Authority and since Civil suit is pending before the City Civil Court and since the Appellate Authority and the City Civil Court have passed an order of status-quo, demolition in respect of the said construction could not be carried out.

¶16

4] We find that the Petition has substantially served its purpose. So far as demolition of other unauthorized structure is concerned, we direct that the Corporation shall defend the said proceedings diligently and after final orders are passed in the said Appeal and Civil suit, the further action for demolition of unauthorized construction would be taken in accordance with the final outcome of the said Appeal and the suit.

¶17

5] The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

[M. S. KARNIK, J]

¶19

[B. R. GAVAI, J]

¶20

2 of 2

¶21

BGP.

Mr. Ramesh Bajaj and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramesh Bajaj and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 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

Subham Fabrics LLP Vs the Executive Engineer (Building Proposals ) City I and Anr.

Vinay Madnani Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Sahayog Rahiwasi Seva Committee Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Khar Seven Stars Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Laxmi Industrial Estate Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Pooja Wadhwa Vs Narsse Monjee Institute of Management Studies and 3 Ors.