Disposed

Hasan Khan Sardar Khan Thr Its Poa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Nov 2022WP/7863/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition concerned unauthorized construction on the petitioners' land. The High Court held that ownership and possession are civil matters outside its writ jurisdiction. Disposing of the petition as the Corporation had already acted under statutory notices, no further order was necessary.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No further order is necessary.

Hasan Khan Sardar Khan Thr Its Poa and Anr. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed by MUGDHA M MUGDHA M PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date:2022.11.29 14:51:04 +0530

¶2

1 75-WP 7863-22 @ IA 19619-22.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7863 OF 2022

¶5

Hasan Khan Sardar Khan, Through
it’s Constitute attorney Mr. Aslam Hasan Khan
& Anr.… Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.… Respondents

¶8

Mr. B. B. Tiwari a/w Mr. Azimuddin Kazi and Mr. Rizwan Khan i/by N. N.
Kazi & Associates for the Petitioners.
Mrs. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Anand Kulkarni for Respondent No.2-Corporation.

¶9

CORAM:S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATED :28TH NOVEMBER 2022

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶12

2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that on the

¶13

land of the Petitioners, unauthorised construction has been carried out by

¶14

some persons, the complaint has been filed with the Corporation, but the
cognizance has not been taken out.

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

Mugdha

¶17

2 75-WP 7863-22 @ IA 19619-22.doc

¶18

3.The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, on

¶19

instructions, submits that after the complaint was received, the
Respondent-Corporation has conducted the survey and has confirmed
about the unauthorised construction. Notices under Sections 260 and 267
of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 have been issued and
further steps are being undertaken by the Corporation.

¶20

4.Under the present Writ Petition, we will not be dealing with
the aspect of possession and ownership of the land. The dispute can only
be decided by the Civil Court. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-
Corporation has submitted that the survey has been conducted and the
action has been initiated by issuing notice under Sections 260 and 267 of
the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, therefore, no further
order is necessary.

¶21

5.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶23

2 of 2

¶24

Mugdha

Hasan Khan Sardar Khan Thr Its Poa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Khan Sardar Khan Thr Its Poa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Public Prosecutor 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

Rizwan Irfan Shaikh Vs the Executive Engineer Bandra Division and 2 Ors.

Samaj Kalyan Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Riyaj Ibrahim Hundekari Vs Azhar Imam M. Ibrahim Pathan and Ors.

M/S. Devi Construction Co. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation Adn Anr.

Savita Homemakers LLP and Anr. Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Mr. Kamlakar Kashinath Taware and Anr. Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.