Dismissed

Gokuldas Ramraya Pai v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2017WP/3113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions from the Bombay High Court to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to consider a sanctioned plan for granting a road to access his landlocked property and to decide his representation on right of way within four weeks. The Single Bench dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No order passed. Petition disposed of without adjudication on merits.

Gokuldas Ramraya Pai Vs the Commissioner Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WPL 1932.17.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION (Lodg.) NO. 1932 OF 2017

¶6

Gokuldas Ramraya Pai.

¶7

… Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.

¶10

... Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Sanjeev Sawant i/b. Mr. Abhishek P. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Dipen Merchant, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Kejali Mastakar for BMC.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. Oka and M.S. Sonak, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 11 December, 2017.

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents. There are two substantive prayers made in this Petition which are prayers (a) and (b) which read thus :-

¶17

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate order or direction thereby directing the Respondent

¶18

WPL 1932.17.doc

¶19

¶20

No.1 to consider the sanctioned plan dated 2^nd November 2011 pertaining to the land bearing CTS No. 200 and 201/A situate at Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai and the road which is in existence be made available to the Petitioner's property bearing Survey No. 99, Hissa No. 13, CTS No. 213 situate at Kandivali West, Mumbai as the petitioner's property is a landlocked property;

¶21

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order thereby giving appropriate directions to the Respondent No.1 to forthwith decide the representation dated 3^rd July 2017 made by the Petitioner pertaining to the right of way/access to the Petitioner's property bearing Survey No. 99, Hissa No.13, CTS No. 213 situate at Kandivali West, Mumbai and the same be done within a period of four weeks from the date of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶22

Even in the representation referred in prayer clause (b), a prayer made is in terms of prayer clause (a) above.

¶23

The Petitioner is claiming right of way through the land bearing CTS No. 200 and 201/A, Charkop, Kandivali, Mumbai. According to us, the Municipal Corporation or its Commissioner are powerless to pass an order directing owners of CTS No. 200 and 201/A to grant right of way to the Petitioner.

¶24

If it is the case of the Petitioner that while granting building permission in relation to the land bearing CTS No. 200 and 201/A, the Municipal Corporation has incorporated a condition of

¶25

WPL 1932.17.doc

¶26

¶27

providing an access to the Petitioner's property, by producing a copy of the development permission, the Petitioner can seek appropriate action against the owners of CTS No. 200 and 201/A for committing breach of the condition.

¶28

Suffice it to say that reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of. We make it clear that there is no adjudication made on merits.

Gokuldas Ramraya Pai v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokuldas Ramraya Pai v. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlabai P. Gundecha Vs Vasant Appasaheb Chougule and Ors.

M/S. Mutha Construction Vs Ganessh Sripat Kot

Surendra Dattatray Bhoir and Ors. Vs Mr. Ganesh Sripat Kot

Atul Rajaram Ohol and 6 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Sai Omkar Seva Shakari Sanstha (Ltd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Keshav Sadashiv Shigam Vs the Commissioner, Mcgm and Another