Disposed

Satish Maruti Indure and Ors. v. Nagar Parishad Karamala

Bombay HC17 Dec 2024WP/18720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners-plaintiffs, denied interim injunction against demolition notices by trial and appellate courts, sought protection in writ petition. Structures stood over 20 years. Court continued the appellate court's stay against demolition until next date and adjourned to 11 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim injunction restraining Respondents from demolishing petitioners' structures continued till next date (11 February 2025).

Satish Maruti Indure and Ors. vs Nagar Parishad… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

905.WP.18720.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.18720 OF 2024

¶4

SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR

¶5

Satish Maruti Indure and Ors. ...Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2025.01.02 11:38:26 +0530

¶8

Nagar Parishad, Karmala Through its Chief Executive Officer

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr.Rahul Kadam i/b. Mr.Shardul Diwan:Advocate for Petitioners.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 20^th DECEMBER 2024

¶14

P. C. :-

¶15

Heard learned Advocate Shri.Kadam for Petitioners-Plaintiffs.

¶16

As directed on the last date, private service is effected on the

¶17

Respondents. Affidavit is taken on record. Today, no one has appeared.

¶18

The Petitioners have failed before the trial Court in getting interim prohibitory injunction. They have also failed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal on 5^th December 2024 (Page No.118). However, the Appellate Court has extended the stay for a period of 15 days as per the order dated 5^th

¶19

December 2024 (Page No.121). Today, the said period expires.

¶20

Satish Sangar

¶21

1/3

¶22

905.WP.18720.2024.doc

¶23

Learned Advocate Shri.Kadam has invited my attention to the notice on Page No.22 onwards. They are issued to individual Petitioners-Plaintiffs. There is a reference of Section 179 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

¶24

The contention of Mr.Kadam is as follows:-

¶25

(a) In a given set of facts, notice under Section 179 of the said Act cannot be given because the structures involving in the said suit are not standing on a public street. He has shown to me photos on Page No.173 to Page No.181 of the private paper-book. The paper-book is taken on record.

¶26

(b) According to him, these structures are standing on a private land and merely because, non-agricultural use is permitted, automatically, the land does not become a public street.

¶27

(c) He also relied upon the provisions of Section 174 of the said Act. It empowers the Council to declare a street as a public street after following the procedure. According to him, it is not followed.

¶28

(d) The impugned notices do not mention about the structures erected without permission.

¶29

The Respondents need to be given some time to appear and contest this Petition. These structures are in existence since more than

¶30

20 years. Certain protection is required till next date . The Appellate

¶31

Satish Sangar

¶32

2/3

¶33

905.WP.18720.2024.doc

¶34

Court, at the time of issuing notice on 9^th October 2024 has restrained the Respondents from demolishing the shops of the AppellantsPetitioners for a limited duration. This stay was extended by the Appellate Court after dismissal of the Appeal. So, let the same . injunction be continued till next date

¶35

The Respondents may be informed about this order by all the

¶36

modes available and Affidavit be filed on the next date.

¶37

In view of that, stand over to 11^th February 2025 .

¶38

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

¶39

Satish Sangar

¶40

3/3

Satish Maruti Indure and Ors. v. Nagar Parishad Karamala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Maruti Indure and Ors. v. Nagar Parishad Karamala

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudam Ramchandra Gadakari vs Pandurang Rama Jamdade

Shri. Pandurang Shankar Kharpude vs Shantabai Vishnu Hivarkar and Ors.

Surekha Prabhakar Dixit and Others vs Vasanti Murlidhar Potdar and Others

Chandrakant Shantilal Kothari vs Asaboddin Ibrahim Mulani and Ors.

Dr. Poonam Avinashchandra Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Smt. Vimal Irappa Patil and Others vs Sunil Radheshyam Bharadiya and Another