Disposed

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Jun 2023WP/1962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought continuation of interim protection to file a civil suit. The Court granted an extension of interim protection for 45 days and directed that any application for temporary injunction be considered on merits.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted vide order dated 01.02.2021 extended for a period of 45 days.

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

p1-wp1962-21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 2021

¶4

SHAIKH UMAR SHAIKH CHAND

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the respondents-State
Mr. Ameet R.Vaidya, Advocate for respondent No.3-Corporation

¶8

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, &
 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 8th June, 2023

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

1. This matter was not on board.

¶11

2. On 01.02.2021, this Court [Coram: S.V. Gangapurwala(as His

¶12

Lordship then was) & Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ] had passed the
following order:

¶13

"1. Keeping the point of maintainability vis-
a-vis the alternate remedy open, issue notice to
respondents, returnable on 08.03.2021. The
learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for
respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶14

2. We would not protect the petitioner if the petitioner is encroacher. In case, the petitioner is not encroacher over any public property or public road or the construction thereon is not against any Development Control Rules, then the

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

p1-wp1962-21

¶17

respondents may not dispossess the petitioner till the next date. However, this protection would not be available to the petitioner if the writ construction is against the Development Control Rule and/or is on encroached portion ."

¶18

3. Thereafter, notices were served on the parties. Considering

¶19

the Covid pandemic, the matter was not listed. Today, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner intimated the learned Advocate for the
Corporation and moved a motion for urgent hearing at 10.30. a.m.
Considering the reasons cited, this petition was taken on the
production Board.

¶20

4. Since the dispute raised appears to be contentious and would
require a proper adjudication by the civil court having jurisdiction, the
learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the protection granted
by this Court earlier may be continued for a period of eight weeks to
enable the petitioner to prefer a suit and seek temporary injunction.

¶21

5.The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that the
Corporation has today removed the unauthorized constructions and rest
of the constructed residential house is kept intact.

¶22

6.In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with liberty
to the petitioner to prefer a civil suit as per provisions of law. The
interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021
would continue for a period of 45 days from today.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

p1-wp1962-21

¶25

7.If the petitioner prefers an application for temporary
injunction, the same would be considered expeditiously on its own
merits without being influenced by the fact that this Court had
protected the petitioner vide order dated 01.02.2021.

¶26

 All contentions of the litigating parties are kept open.

¶27

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )

¶28

 ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶29

JPChavan

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others

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

Balaji Nagnath Wadkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

M/S Skycon Infra Construction through Its Proprietor Sajid Yunus Kachchhi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rajkumar Alias Rajendra Tulshiram Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Avinash Chandrakant Bahiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar Vs the State of Maharashtra through He Principle Secretary

Mainabai Shankarrao Parsalge Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary