Allowed

Sushant Sureshrao Charjan v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC10 Dec 2021CAW/1571/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to correct a typographical error in a prior amendment order. The error involved incorrect details regarding a reservation site number in a development plan, which the court directed to be updated.

What did the court decide?

The civil application is allowed. The words “ Park, vide Reservation No.8” in paragraph 13(ii) of the judgment dated 17.03.2020 in WP No.7119/2016 are replaced by “Public Amenities Reservation No.29.”

Sushant Sureshrao Charjan Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4.CAW1571.21.odt 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO.1571/2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7119/2016(D)

¶4

Sushan S.Charjan

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Shri G.K.Mundhada, Advocate for petitioner/applicant. Mrs. S.S.Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant nos.1 and 4. Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate for non-applicant nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND G.A.SANAP, JJ. DATED :- DECEMBER 10, 2021.

¶10

By this application it is prayed that typographical error that has occurred in amendment application bearing Civil Application (W) No.466/2019 be permitted to be corrected by deleting the words “Park vide Reservation No.8” by the words “Public Amenities vide Reservation No.29”.

¶11

In the application it is stated that in prayer clause (B) of the writ petition reservation site had been incorrectly mentioned and therefore application for amendment was moved vide Civil Application (W) No.466/2019. However though the amendment was granted, the incorrect details were supplied as regards the details of the reservation. Consequently the authorities while issuing Notification pursuant to the judgment dated 17.03.2020 found it difficult to declare that the reservation with regard to Park vide Reservation No.8 had lapsed. Hence the present application has been moved.

¶12

4.CAW1571.21.odt 2

¶13

Reply has been filed by the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3/original respondent nos. 2 and 3. In paragraph 4 of the said reply it has been stated that the land of the petitioner was affected by Reservation Site Nos.96 and 97. This reservation was re-numbered as Reservation Site Nos. 29 for public amenities in the proposed revised development plan.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, it is clear that while carrying out the amendment incorrect details in the form of “Park vide Reservation No.8” came to be supplied. The civil application is therefore allowed. Paragraph 13(ii) of the judgment dated 17.03.2020 in Writ Petition No.7119/2016 is corrected in the following manner :

¶15

The words “ Park, vide Reservation No.8” be replaced by the words “Public Amenities Reservation No.29”. The corrections be carried out accordingly.

¶16

The civil application is disposed of.

¶17

(G.A.SANAP, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶18

Andurkar..

¶19

Digitally Signed byJAYANT S ANDURKAR Personal Assistant Signing Date: 10.12.2021 13:20

Sushant Sureshrao Charjan v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushant Sureshrao Charjan v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

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

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer Vs Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy Iyer and Another

Smt. Sucheta W/O Sachin Iyer Vs Sachin S/O Krishnamurthy Iyer and Another

Azrullah Inamdar S/O.Shamiulla Inamdar. Vs Mst.Asefa Anjum W/O.Azrullah.

Regl.Provident Fund Commr.and Ano. Vs Sanjay Memorial Teachers Edu.So.

State of Maha. Thru. Executive Engineer Vs Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur and Anor.

M/S Shiva Steel Industries, Nagpur Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur