Disposed

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh v. the Block Development Officer ( Class-I) , Panchayat Samiti , Karmala Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2019WP/10412/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that disputed questions regarding construction violations involving adjacent plots cannot be decided in present writ jurisdiction due to non-appearance of respondents and lack of evidence. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a Civil Suit within three months for declaration and injunction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move Civil Court for declaration and injunction within three months; interim order to continue till trial court fresh order.

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh Vs the Block… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Rane 1/4 WP-10412-2018 (SR.8) 4.9.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10412 OF 2018

¶5

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh …Petitioner V/s.

¶6

The Block Development Officer (Class-1) and Ors. ….Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Vivek Salunkhe a/w. Mr. Aniket Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, &

¶10

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

¶11

Wednesday,18^th September, 2019.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Petitioner, a neighbour points out, respondent

¶14

no.3 has raised construction on adjacent plot

¶15

without proper sanctioned plan and without leaving

¶16

any place/space open to sky.

¶17

Rane 2/4 WP-10412-2018 (SR.8) 4.9.2019

¶18

Though, respondents no.1 and 2 are served,

¶19

they have chosen not to appear. Respondent no.3 has

¶20

appeared and filed reply affidavit.

¶21

This Court has on 10^th October, 2018

¶22

restrained respondent no.3 from proceeding further

¶23

with construction. With the result, the

¶24

construction which has reached the stage of first

¶25

slab has come to standstill.

¶26

4. Respondent no.3 has pointed out the area

¶27

of his plot to be 577.5 sq.mts. However, he has not pointed out the area of construction already raised and total construction to be raised. He has not

¶28

placed on record any map pointing out the marginal

¶29

spaces to be kept open to sky.

¶30

Rane 3/4 WP-10412-2018 (SR.8) 4.9.2019

¶31

Petitioner, as also, respondent no.3 is

¶32

not in a position to point out the Development Control Rule or Building Bye-laws which govern the subject plans. Learned Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that construction of petitioner is also unauthorised and without proper sanction.

¶33

Petitioner has not produced before us any sanction plan showing layout or then sanctioned plan of his own structure. He has not placed before

¶34

us a photograph pointing out the structure being erected by respondent no.3.

¶35

We therefore find several disputed questions arising for consideration. These questions cannot be gone into in present jurisdiction. Not only this, respondents no.1 and 2

¶36

Rane 4/4 WP-10412-2018 (SR.8) 4.9.2019

¶37

have chosen not to appear though they are served.

¶38

In this situation, we grant petitioner

¶39

liberty to move Civil Court for grant of appropriate declaration and injunction. If such suit is filed within a period of three months from today, interim order granted by this Court shall continue till the trial Court passes fresh order afresh on prayer for temporary injunction therein. The trial Court shall, without getting influenced by our

¶40

observations, decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶41

With these observations, we dispose off

¶42

the petition.

¶43

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶44

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh v. the Block Development Officer ( Class-I) , Panchayat Samiti , Karmala Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh v. the Block Development Officer ( Class-I) , Panchayat Samiti , Karmala Solapur 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

Irappa @ Chermal Subhash Dhangar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irfan Dastagir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balu Prakash Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh Vs the Block Development Officer ( Class-I) , Panchayat Samiti , Karmala Solapur and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Dagadu Thakur Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Ibrahim Fakirsaheb Nalband and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.