Disposed

Shri. Tilak Hansraj Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2018WP/3077/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notice under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act to demolish a structure. The Court found that the Petitioner's application for regularisation had been rejected by the Chief Officer, rendering the petition infructuous. The Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to challenge the rejection and maintaining status quo for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to challenge rejection of regularisation application; status quo maintained for 4 weeks.

Shri. Tilak Hansraj Sharma Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

908.wp3077.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3077 OF 2018

¶4

Shri Tilak Hansraj Sharma.

¶5

… Petitioner.

¶6

v/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary & ors. … Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Laxman Shivajirao Deshmukh, advocate for petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for State.

¶10

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶11

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.

¶12

DATE : MARCH 15, 2018.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶15

2 The Petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 Council under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to demolish subject offending structure and if the same is not demolished, then the Council made it clear that it will be demolished in accordance with law.

¶16

3 Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that immediately after receipt of the impugned notice, he had filed application for regularisation of the offending structure. Mr. Nargolkar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 however submits that

Talwalkar

1/2

908.wp3077.18.doc

regularisation application filed by the Petitioner is already rejected by the Chief Officer by his order dated 6/3/2018 and the order is already communicated to the Petitioner. He placed on record the said order dated 6/3/2018. Having perused the order, we find that the Petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶21

4 In the light of above, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner would like to file an appeal against the order passed by the Chief Officer of the respondent No. 2 refusing to regularise the offending structure. However, he submits that limited protection to the said structure be given.

¶22

5 In the light of the above, present petition having become infructuous, we dispose of the same by granting liberty to Petitioner to challenge the order dated 6/3/2018 rejecting petitioner's application for regularisation by filing appropriate proceedings before appellate authority.

¶23

6 In order to enable the Petitioner to approach appropriate authority in this regard, both the parties i.e. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 shall maintain status quo as of today regarding the notice structure for a period of 4 weeks from today.

¶24

7 It is expressly made clear that this order should not be treated as an expression of any opinion on merits and the authority before whom, appropriate proceedings will be filed by the petitioner will consider the same independently on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶25

[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶26

Talwalkar

¶27

2/2

Shri. Tilak Hansraj Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Tilak Hansraj Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Anr.

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. Shrimanti Bandopant Kolhapure Vs Shri. Shyamrao Patil and Ors.

Vinayak Kundalik Mane Vs Daund Nagarparishad , through Its Representative and Ors.

Shri. Amol Nivrutti Bhumkar Vs Surekha Shankar Pawar, and Ors.

Sheela W/O. Ansar Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Lalkot Javid Maulaali Vs the Administrative Officer, Primary Education Board of the Mun.Corporation of City of Solapur Andor

Shri Balkrishna Jagannath Lad Vs Chief Officer, Shri Abhijit Bapat and Ors.