Disposed

Achintya Mukherjee and Another v. Municipal Corporatio of Greater Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Feb 2018WP/471/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking enforcement of notices under the MRTP Act alleging illegal installation of a gate and obstruction of a road. The Court directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish exclusive rights of way and declined to entertain the writ without adjudicating on notices' validity.

What did the court decide?

The petition was declined to be entertained and disposed of without adjudication on the legality of the notices.

Mr.Sukanta Karmakar, AGP for State Ms Vandana Mahadik for the respondent-MMC Dr.Birendra Saraf a/w Mr.Vishal Karande and Mr.Kalpesh Mehta and Ms Urvi Tamhane i/b Pravin Mehta and Mithi & Co. for respondent No.8

1 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. It is true that the petitioners are seeking implementation of the notices under sub- section 1 of section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short `MRTP Act') issued on 16th March 2003 and 22nd June 2013. The said notices alleged that by demolishing a portion of compound wall, M.S.Gate is illegally installed. The entire petition proceeds on the footing that as a result of the said action of putting the M.S.Gate, the contesting respondents have been allegedly using the development plan road in between plot No.92 and final Plot No.84 on the other hand. If the petitioners are claiming exclusive right of way over

the said development plan road and if the contention of the petitioner is that the contesting respondents are not entitled to use the same, the petitioners will have to approach the Civil Court and establish their exclusive right. There is also a prayer made enjoining the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to take action under clause (b) of sub-section (6) of section 53 of the MRTP Act. In fact the said order was made by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation which has been stayed in the Writ Petition No.2747 of 2014. The first petitioner is a party to the said writ petition.

2As far as the subject notices issued under sub-section 1 of section 53 are concerned, as of today, there is nothing on record to show that either the operation of the notices has been stayed or that the said notices have been withdrawn. If the petitioners want to seek enforcement of the said notices on the footing that they have exclusive right of way, they have a remedy to approach the Civil Court and to establish their right. If the petitioners are right in their contention, the petitioners can always seek injunction preventing the use of the said Gate even assuming that it is authorized. Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition and the same is disposed of.

3We, however, make it clear that if the notices dated 16th March 2003 and 22nd June 2013 issued under sub-section 1 of section 53 of the MRTP Act are enforceable, the same can be always enforced by the

Achintya Mukherjee and Another v. Municipal Corporatio of Greater Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achintya Mukherjee and Another v. Municipal Corporatio of Greater Mumbai and Others

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

Sanjay Pandurang Shetye and Anr. Vs the Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Shopkeepers Welfare Association Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Amit Murlidhar Sawant and 6 Ors. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Om Arihant Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation Fort Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.

Mohd Jakir Mohd Umar and 14 Ors. Vs Assistant Commissioner and 3 Ors.

Nilkanth K. Parab Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.