Disposed

Mohammed Asim Haji Mohammed Sharif Raine and Anr. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 40 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2018WP/1904/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Bombay accepted the Municipal Corporation's assurance to take action against illegal construction but denied the petitioners' prayer for demolishing a wall or creating a corridor due to lack of vested right of way. The Court also dismissed the prayer for TDR/FSI, directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of accepting Corporation's statement to act on illegal constructions; other prayers denied.

Mohammed Asim Haji Mohammed Sharif Raine and Anr. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wpl-1307.18.doc

¶2

pmw

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1307 OF 2018

¶5

Mohammed Asim Haji Mohammed and Anr. … Petitioners Vs.

¶6

Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Ms. Bhavna Punalekar I/by Mr. Nitin P. Dalvi for the Petitioners. Ms. Vandana Mahadik for the Respondent – BMC. Mr. S.D. Joshi I/by Mr. Devendra Singh for the Respondent Nos.2, 4, 6, 9, 11 & 16 to 18.

¶8

Mr. Vishal Chopade, Junior Engineer (L) Ward is present.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 15^th JUNE 2018

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 When we invited attention of the learned counsel

¶13

appearing for the first respondent – Municipal Corporation to the order dated 3^rd May 2018, she states that due process of law will be followed and action of demolition will be taken against those who have carried out illegal construction and those who are carrying out illegal construction. This statement is accepted which takes care of prayer clause (b). As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the petitioners are seeking access from the wall constructed by the first respondent – Municipal Corporation for creating 10 meter corridor abutting the main water pipeline. The petitioners have not pointed out any right vesting in

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

2 wpl-1307.18.doc

¶16

them which enjoins the first respondent – Municipal Corporation to protect their right of way. Therefore, the second prayer cannot be granted. As far as last substantive prayer which is prayer clause (d) is concerned, it is for the concerned party to apply for grant of benefit of TDR/ FSI by making out case of entitlement and therefore, a writ as prayed for cannot be issued. By accepting the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, we dispose of the petition.

¶17

2 Compliance affidavit with the statement which is recorded above shall be filed by the concerned Designated Officer on or before 31^st July 2018. Place the petition for reporting compliance under the caption of “Directions” on 3^rd August 2018.

¶18

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶19

2 of 2

Mohammed Asim Haji Mohammed Sharif Raine and Anr. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 40 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Asim Haji Mohammed Sharif Raine and Anr. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 40 Ors.

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

Saroj Indreshkumar Dube Vs Kaushik More and 3 Ors. (Contemnors) and the Municipal Commissioner and 2 Ors. (Respondents)

Bipinchandra Harivallabhdas Shah Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Smt. Kamal Laxman Borole through Her Constituted Attorney Vs State of Maharashtra through Hon'Ble Minister for Town Planning Dept. and Ors.

Sind Educationists' Association Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Balasaheb Kisan Kakare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jagrut Mahil Mandal Ngo Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.