Allowed

Jkd Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. through Its Dir. Sahil Jayeshbhai Patel v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2018WP/1911/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order is based on the assumption that the petitioner had complied with the legal requirements laid down in sections 63 and 134(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The court held that the petitioner should file for regularization of unauthorized developments within a period of two weeks. The court further held that the regularization application should be decided within

What did the court decide?

The court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had complied with the legal requirements laid down in sections 63 and 134(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 19

Jkd Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. through Its Dir. Sahil Jayeshbhai… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

SKN

¶2

1/3 1894.18-wpl.doc

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (LDG.) NO. 1894 OF 2018

¶5

JKD Hospitality Pvt.Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and others. … Respondents.

¶6

Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr.Jeetendra Mishra, Mr.Sanjay Dubey and Ms.Ankita Upadhyay for the petitioner. Ms.Vandana Mahadik for the respondent- MMC. Ms.Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the respondent- State.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 20th June 2018.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Not on board. Taken up on board.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the affidavit dated 15^th June 2018 of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation states that the statement made in paragraph5 of the affidavit has been complied with and fire escape balcony has been restored to its original position. We accept the said statement.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as stated in the affidavit, the petitioner will apply for regularization of the

¶12

SKN

¶13

2/3 1894.18-wpl.doc

¶14

other unauthorized developments and for regularization of change of user within a period of two weeks from today. Similar statement has been made in the aforesaid affidavit. We accept the said statement.

¶15

As action has been taken under sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”), the petitioner could have applied for regularization under sub-section (3) of section 53 of the MRTP Act.

¶16

5. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶17

(i) It will be open for the petitioner to make an application for regularization through a licensed Architect by a prescribed mode and in a prescribed form in terms of paragraphs-3 and 4 of the affidavit dated 15^th June 2018;

¶18

(ii) If the application as aforesaid is filed within a period of fifteen days from today, the same shall be decided on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of sixty days from the date of filing of the application. The order passed on the said application shall be communicated to the petitioner's Architect. Till the date of communication of the order to the petitioner's Architect, no action shall be taken on the basis of the impugned notice and the impugned order;

¶19

3/3 1894.18-wpl.doc

¶20

SKN

¶21

(iii) In the event the order passed on the regularization application be adverse to the petitioner, the same protection shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from the date on which the order is served on the petitioner's Architect;

¶22

(iv) We make it clear that if the petitioner fails to apply for regularization within the stipulated period of fifteen days, it will be open for the respondent- Municipal Corporation to take action on the basis of the impugned notice and the impugned order;

¶23

(v) All contentions on merits of the regularization application proposed to be made are kept open;

¶24

(vi) Writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶25

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.)

¶26

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Jkd Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. through Its Dir. Sahil Jayeshbhai Patel v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jkd Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. through Its Dir. Sahil Jayeshbhai Patel v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 2 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

Yen Badminton Academy Proprietor Shri. R.P. Ganpule Vs Thane Municipal Corporation Thorugh Its Commissioner and Ors.

Vinod Saraf, Trustee of Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Medical and Educational Trust and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, Thru. Government Pleader and Ors.

Yen Badminton Academy Proprietor Shri. R.P. Ganpule Vs Thane Municipal Corporation Thorugh Its Commissioner and Ors.

Purshottam Chhagan Chouhan Vs the Commissioner , Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs Mr. Anil Vasant Raul and Ors.

Shri. Baldev Chimandas Tejwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.