Disposed

Akhtar Abdul Bari Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2018WP/1386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged illegal high-rise and podium construction in a redevelopment society. The court declined to decide merits, directing the Corporation to investigate and the civil court to expedite a pending appeal regarding a demolition notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the Corporation was directed to look into grievances, and the civil court was directed to deal with pending interim applications expeditiously.

Akhtar Abdul Bari Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/3 16wp1386.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1386 of 2018

¶4

Mr.Akhtar Abdul Bari Qureshi … Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vishwanath Patil i/b. Yuvraj Patil for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr.N.R.Bubna for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. H.I. Sirgoroh i/b M.I.Khan for respondent no.6. Mr. Ashwin V. Sakalkar for respondent no.4.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING C.J. & G.S. KULKARNI, J.

¶11

24th September, 2018.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The petitioner is a member of respondent no.6 Society which is

¶14

under re-development project. The petitioner's allegation is that the

¶15

10^th floor has been illegally constructed and on 9^th floor there is additional construction. The petitioner seeks direction to demolish the

¶16

alleged illegal construction.

¶17

2/3 16wp1386.18.doc

¶18

The learned Counsel appearing for Corporation submits that Developer has filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane bearing R.C.S.No.846/2017 before the Civil Judge, Thane challenging the notice issued by Corporation on 7^th March, 2017 and an order dated 24^th April, 2017 issued under Section 260 of MMC Act by the Designated Officer of the Corporation. The Civil Judge, Thane has passed status-quo order against the Corporation. The Counsel for Corporation submits that ad-interim order has been vacated on 31^st July, 2018.

¶19

The said order has been challenged in an appeal filed by the Developer which is numbered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.138/2018. An ad-interim order has been passed by the Additional District Judge, Thane. The Counsel submits that Corporation is party to the appeal and necessary steps are being taken to prosecute the appropriate remedies on behalf of the Corporation.

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that apart

¶21

3/3 16wp1386.18.doc

¶22

from 10^th floor even 1^st floor podium is illegally constructed.

¶23

We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. We direct the Corporation to look into grievances and take necessary steps in accordance with law. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal pending before the District Court, we direct the Additional District Judge, Thane to expeditiously deal with the interim application, if pending in the proceedings Ms. Civil Appeal No.138/18 on its own merits and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Keeping all issues on merits open and with aforesaid

¶25

observations and directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

The learned Counsel appearing for Corporation to bring this

¶27

order to the notice of the Commissioner of concerned Corporation.

¶28

G.S.KULKARNI, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

¶30

Digitally Lata signed by LataSunil Panjwani Sunil Date: Panjwani 2018.09.2613:05:24 +0530

Akhtar Abdul Bari Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Abdul Bari Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Smt. Kesarben Khushalchand Nagda Vs the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane and Ors.

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Sapphire Bar and Restaurant Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Leela Vinay Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S. Kalyani Veg Hotel, Thr. Its Proprietor Shri. Raghuram Narayan Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.