Dismissed

Dr. Hemant Kshirsagar and Anr. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of India and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2018WP/635/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged unauthorized constructions and structural changes. The High Court held that such issues must be examined by the competent CIDCO authority after a hearing, dismissing the petition to be disposed of in that manner.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the competent authority of CIDCO to examine unauthorized construction/user and take appropriate steps after a hearing.

Dr. Hemant Kshirsagar and Anr. Vs City… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

5-wp-635.2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 635 OF 2015

¶5

and anr. … Petitioners Dr. Hemant Kshirsagar

¶6

Versus

¶7

City & Industrial Development Corporation of India and Ors. …

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr. A.S. Rao for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. A.M. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Gaurav Sharma for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶11

Mr. V.S.Gokhale, “B” Panel counsel, AGP for respondent nos. 4 to 7.

¶12

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2018

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Parties through their counsel.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no. 8

¶16

has raised constructions unauthorizedly and made structural changes without there being any permission from the respondent CIDCO. Respondent CIDCO as also respondent

¶17

no. 8 have filed reply. The case of respondent no. 8 is that he

¶18

Digitally signed by Hemant Hemant Vasantrao nilegaonkar Vasantrao Nilegaonkar Nilegaonkar Date:2018.08.20 16:51:55 +0530

¶19

1/3

¶20

5-wp-635.2015.doc

¶21

has not raised any unauthorized or illegal construction but in

¶22

fact petitioners are using their premises for different purpose than for which it was sanctioned.

¶23

Be that as it may, we find that the question of unauthorized construction or illegal user as alleged by the parties against each other has to be considered and decided by the competent authority of the CIDCO. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition by directing the competent authority of CIDCO to examine the entire issue raised by the petitioners as also by respondent no. 8 and take appropriate steps against the unauthorized construction or unauthorized user of the premises, as the case may be, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as also to respondent no. 8.

¶24

Let the decision as aforesaid be taken by the competent

¶25

authority CIDCO within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.

¶27

Needless to say that we have not examined the merits of

¶28

the matter and the competent authority of the CIDCO shall be

2/3

nilegaonkar

5-wp-635.2015.doc

free to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶34

3/3

¶35

nilegaonkar

Dr. Hemant Kshirsagar and Anr. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Hemant Kshirsagar and Anr. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of India and 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

Dhavalchindra Balkrishna Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Anjali Dinkar Datar Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Kondabi Saifan Shaikh Vs Smt. Satebhama Ambadas Suttar and Ors.