Dismissed

Prafulla Pandurang Sawant Pro. of M/S Ravigiri Construction Co. v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2018WP/7481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging development permission granted by Thane Municipal Corporation and inaction on a representation. Petitioner claimed rights under a joint venture but failed to establish ownership/title before the Civil Court. Court found no case for interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the Writ Petition; petitioner free to pursue appropriate remedy in Civil Court.

Prafulla Pandurang Sawant Pro. of M/S Ravigiri… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

516-WP-7481-18.doc

¶2

Sharayu Khot.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7481 OF 2018

¶5

Prafulla Pandurang Sawant …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sandeep Mishra, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Mandar Limaye, for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 18 July 2018

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶14

Digitally signed Sharayu by SharayuPandurang Pandurang Khot Khot Date:2018.07.24 03:17:10 +1200

¶15

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶16

1 / 3

¶17

July 18, 2018

¶18

516-WP-7481-18.doc

¶19

Petitioner. The grievance in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that notwithstanding the representations made by the Petitioner, firstly, a development permission has been granted by the 1st Respondent-Municipal Corporation and secondly, no action has been taken on the basis of the representation dated 21st June 2018.

¶20

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not dispute the construction is being carried out in accordance with the development permission granted on 7th November 2017. He does not dispute that the development permission has been granted by the Municipal Corporation to a developer who applied on behalf of the real owner of the property. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that there is a joint venture agreement by and between the Petitioner and one Shri. Sudhakar Shankar Sule under which the Petitioner has a right to develop the said property. Even going by the case of the Petitioner, he is not the owner of the property. If the Petitioner is claiming any right, he

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

July 18, 2018

¶23

516-WP-7481-18.doc

¶24

has to establish the same before the Civil Court.

¶25

4. No case is made out for interference in writ

¶26

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

The Petition is rejected. However, the Petitioner is

¶28

free to adopt the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶29

[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

¶30

3 / 3 July 18, 2018

Prafulla Pandurang Sawant Pro. of M/S Ravigiri Construction Co. v. Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Pandurang Sawant Pro. of M/S Ravigiri Construction Co. v. Thane Municipal Corporation and 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

Muchhala N v and 2 Others Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 11 Others

Mr Ganesh Prakash Wankar Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Soloapur

Gail (India) Limited Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Sukhram Ramsakal Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Babaso Gangaram Dorge and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Ors.

Shri. Hasmukh K. Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.