Disposed

Harishchandra Govind Patil v. Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2019PIL/18/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL directs the municipal corporation's Commissioner to take legal notices issued regarding unauthorized construction on a road to their logical conclusion, including demolition if warranted, within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs Commissioner to take notices to logical conclusion and demolish unauthorized building within eight weeks.

Harishchandra Govind Patil Vs Vasai Virar City Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(6) PIL 18-18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 18 OF 2018

¶5

Harishchandra Govind Patil

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation

¶9

& Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. S. S. Redekar for the Petitioner. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶12

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 25th JUNE, 2019.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

This is a Public Interest Litigation and for the order we propose to pass, it is being disposed of without any notice being issued.

¶15

It is the case of the Petitioner that land comprised in Survey Nos. 155 and 156 at village Navale, District Palghar is a plantation zone.

¶16

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have constructed a building without obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority. As per the Petitioner, the construction has been made on a 90 feet wide road as per the development plan.

¶17

Annexed as Annexure ‘D’ to the Public Interest Petition and corresponding pleadings to said Annexure ‘D’, in paragraph 8 of the Public Interest Petition it is pleaded that on 18.07.2017 the Assistant Commissioner, Engineering Department of Vasai Virar Municipal

¶18

1/2

¶19

(6) PIL 18-18

¶20

Corporation issued a notice to Respondent Nos.2 to 5 recording therein that the building was not sanctioned. The notice contains a direction to stop further construction. The notice records that the said Respondents would be prosecuted for their illegal acts.

¶21

The grievance is to the said notice not being taken to its logical conclusion.

¶22

We dispose of the Petition directing the Petitioner to serve a copy of this Public Interest Petition together with an authenticated copy of the present order in the office of the 1^st Respondent. We direct the Commissioner of the 1^st Respondent to personally look into the matter. Call for the relevant file in which the notices annexed with the Public Interest Petition have been issued. The Commissioner shall ensure by passing necessary order that the notices are taken to their logical conclusion. If it is found that the building constructed by Respondent Nos.2 to 5 is an unauthorized construction, the same shall be demolished. Compliance with the mandamus issued shall be made by the Commissioner of the 1^st Respondent within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the Public Interest Petition together with an authenticated copy of the present order from the Petitioner.

¶23

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶24

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶25

2/2

Harishchandra Govind Patil v. Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Govind Patil v. Vasai Virar City 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik Vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (Mhada) and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajid Usman Batliwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Shivaji Shringrao Bhise and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Devendra S/O Sureshrao Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and 3 Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Vijay S/O Mahesh Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Nagpur and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Alfred Michael Arambhan Vs Ajay Ghanshyamdas Goenka

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik Vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (Mhada) and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anand Bapuji Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Digambar Mahadev Zombade and Anr. Vs the Secretary, Sangameshwar Education Society and Ors.

Dr. D.S. Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.