Disposed

Ram Kailash R. Mishra v. Asstt. Estate Officer (Kharghar) and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2018WP/4320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to stop unauthorized construction. The court accepted undertakings for removal of the construction and non-termination of the lease, leading to disposal without interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on acceptance of undertakings to remove unauthorized construction and assurance of lease retention.

Ram Kailash R. Mishra Vs Asstt. Estate Officer (Kharghar) and Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905 wp 4320-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2018

¶4

Ram Kailash R. Mishra .. Petitioner

¶5

v/s.

¶6

Asstt. Estate Officer (Kharghar) & Ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ramesh Tripathi a/w. Ms. Krinjal Ahuja for the Petitioner. Mr. B.B.Sharma for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶10

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : JULY 04, 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the

¶14

Constitution of India, challenging the notice dated 11^th January, 2018 issued to him by CIDCO. By the said notice the petitioner was directed to stop the unauthorized construction of the weigh bridge, failing which, he was informed that, the allotment agreement would stand cancelled.

¶15

By Lease Deed dated 8^th November, 1986, the respondent no.2

1 of 3

salgaonkar

905 wp 4320-18.doc

had granted leasehold rights to M/s. Sona Steel in respect of Plot No.1932, situated at Kalamboli Warehousing Complex, Navi Mumbai. Subsequently, as per the request letter dated 25^th September, 2011 on payment of transfer charges, the leasehold rights were transferred in the name of the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the said land was to be used for the purpose of warehousing and trading in iron and steel, and for no other purpose. The lease agreement prohibited erection of any building or structure except compound walls, and steps and garages and necessary adjuncts thereto, on any portion of the said land outside the building line.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has constructed a weigh bridge in the subject plot and this has resulted in issuance of the impugned notice. The construction of the weighbridge is in contravention of the terms of lease agreement. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the notice.

¶21

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to remove the unauthorized construction of the weigh bridge by 30^th July, 2018. Statement is accepted as an undertaking to the Court.

2 of 3

salgaonkar

905 wp 4320-18.doc

Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for CIDCO, on instructions, makes a statement that in the event, the petitioner removes the unauthorized construction of the weigh bridge, the lease of the subject plot in favour of the petitioner would not be terminated on the ground specified in the notice. Statement accepted.

¶26

In view of above nothing more survives for consideration. Petition is disposed of in terms of the statements made by the respective parties.

¶27

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

salgaonkar

Ram Kailash R. Mishra v. Asstt. Estate Officer (Kharghar) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kailash R. Mishra v. Asstt. Estate Officer (Kharghar) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rutvij Pradeep Pradhan Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Anr.

Subhash Nagar Nivara Hakka Sangharsh Sameeti through Shrikant Bhardwaj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nivara Hakka Sangharsh Sameeti through Pramod G. More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karamshi R. Ravaria and 3 Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and 3 Ors.

Yasmin Ali Shaikh and 2 Ors. Vs Mumbai Municipal Commissioner Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors. and Ishwar Prasad G. Khandelwal

Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs the Information Commissioner , Central Information Commission and Ors.