Disposed

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra v. the Urban Land Development Minister Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2019PIL/32/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the Commissioner of MCGM to file a report and ensure the demolition of unauthorized construction by the fifth respondent within four weeks, noting no judicial restraint exists.

What did the court decide?

Director the Commissioner of MCGM to ensure demolition of unauthorized construction by Respondent No. 5 within four weeks.

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra Vs the Urban Land Development Minister Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

1.PIL 32.18.doc

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 32 OF 2018

¶6

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra

¶7

… Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Vice President, MHADA and Ors.

¶10

... Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Sachin Gelye for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for Respondent No.1. Ms. K.H. Mastakar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – MCGM.

¶12

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 20 JUNE 2019.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

We have perused the averments in the Writ Petition and

¶16

in view of the facts pleaded which have been made good with

¶17

reference to the orders and communications annexed as annexures to

¶18

the Writ Petition, we are in a position to dispose of the Petition by

¶19

passing suitable directions.

¶20

2 1.PIL 32.18.doc

¶21

Case pleaded is that the 5^th Respondent obtained

¶22

permission from the 2^nd Respondent – Corporation to refurbish the existing construction on Plot No. 29 - 29A, Bhuleshwar Road, Mumbai comprising ground floor, 3 upper floors. That under the garb of refurbish permission obtained, the Respondent No.5 demolished the existing construction and while effecting reconstruction, built covered area more than what was existing in the old structure.

¶23

Taking cognizance of the afore-noted activity of the 5^th Respondent, the Junior Engineer of the Ward concerned, on inspection issued a notice under Section 354(A) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act on 2 November 2012. The Notice was to stop further construction. Thereafter, on 8 November 2012 the Assistant Engineer issued a notice as to why the illegal construction be not demolished and pursuant to the notice passed an order on 26 November 2012 directing the unauthorized construction to be demolished. The 5^th Respondent filed a Civil Suit numbered as L.C.

¶24

1.PIL 32.18.doc

¶25

¶26

Suit No.5005 of 2012 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai challenging the demolition orders and the stop notice issued in which the order to maintain status-quo was passed and ultimately this Suit came to be dismissed in default on 9 October 2014, intimation whereof was given by the Assistant Law Officer to the Engineering Department on 4 August 2015.

¶27

The grievance in the Petition is that inspite of demolition orders being passed and there being no order in force passed by any Court restraining the Corporation from giving effect to the demolition order, the Corporation is not taking action to give effect to the demolition order passed.

¶28

The facts noted hereinabove warrants the directions to

¶29

be issued to the Commissioner of the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation to call for the relevant file from the Engineering Department of Ward 'C' of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and upon ensuring that there is no judicial order passed requiring status-

¶30

1.PIL 32.18.doc

¶31

¶32

quo to be maintained and upon satisfying themselves that the demolition has attain finality to ensure that the Engineering Department demolished the unauthorized construction. Necessary action shall be taken by the Commissioner of the Corporation within four weeks of receipt of authenticated copy of this order.

¶33

Learned Counsel who appears for the 2^nd Respondent

¶34

would ensure that she obtains and transmits an authenticated copy of this order to the Commissioner of the Corporation.

¶35

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra v. the Urban Land Development Minister Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra v. the Urban Land Development Minister Govt. of Maharashtra and 4 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

Ramchandra Laxman Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maha. and Ors.

Shri. Vinayak Shankar Jadhav Vs the Stat of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs Nutan Saraswati Hindi High School and Jr. College, and Ors.

Ramchandra Laxman Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maha. and Ors.

Sanjay Ramesh More and 2 Ors. Vs Bombay Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Advance Locality Management Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bhaskar Mangal Gadge Vs Union of India Thru Mumbai Office at Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai and Ors.

Sanket Sanjeev Deshpande Vs Union of India Thru Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public Distribution and Ors.

Ramchandra Laxman Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maha. and Ors.

Rajendra Ghorpade Vs the Chief Officer, Kulgaon Badlapur Municipal Council and Ors.

Shri. Vinayak Shankar Jadhav Vs the Stat of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Adil Khatri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Eknath Bapuj Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajput Mahasabha Seva Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 8 Others