Partly allowed

Suresh Govindan Nair v. the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, Mcgm

Bombay HC1 Mar 2024WP/643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by plot owners challenging Section 351 notices from the MCGM regarding unauthorized structures on lands under reservation. The High Court refused to stay the notices and expedite to allow illicit commercial activities, instead expediting enforcement of the notices. The petitions were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Notice for explanation and enforcement of Section 351 expedited; petition for stay withdrawn; remaining petitions withdrawn.

Suresh Govindan Nair Vs the Municipal Commissioner of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

919-920-921-OSWP-671-2024.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 643 OF 2024

¶4

Suresh Govindan Nair …Petitioner Versus The Municipal Commissioner of Greater …Respondents Mumbai MCGM & Ors

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2024

¶7

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶8

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.03.04 10:07:25 +0530

¶9

Jyoti Raju Nagar …Petitioner Versus The Municipal Commissioner of Greater …Respondents Mumbai & Ors

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 671 OF 2024

¶12

Bhaskaran Sreevalson Nair …Petitioner Versus The Municipal Commissioner of Greater …Respondents Mumbai & Ors

¶13

Mr Simil Purohit , with Vaibhav Sugdare, JK Shah, Pooja Shah, Rahul Gupta & Govind Munde, i/b RJ Law, for the Petitioners. Mr Suraj Gupte, AGP , for the Respondent-State in WP/643/2024. Ms Poonam Mital, AGP , for Respondent No 4-State, in WP/658/2024 & WP/671/2024. Mr Kunal Waghmare , with Pooja Yadav, i/b Sunil Sonawane, for the

¶14

Page 1 of 3 1st March 2024

¶15

919-920-921-OSWP-671-2024.DOC

¶16

Respondent-MCGM.

¶17

Mr Pratik Tandel , Sub-Engineer (Development Plan), MCGM, present.

¶18

CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 1st March 2024

¶19

PC:-

¶20

1. These Petitions need to be commended for their inventiveness and for the flights of fancy or imagination with which they are conceived.

¶21

2. The Petitioners have plots of land that are under reservation. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“ MCGM ”) has deposited the necessary amounts, and acquisition proceedings are under way but the lands are affected by existing structures and these have been subjected to notices inter alia under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“ the MCGM Act ”).

¶22

3. The submission from the Petitioners is extraordinary. There is no dispute that there are indeed structures or that the Petitioners are themselves using these structures for commercial or some form of industrial activity. What is being urged by Mr Purohit is that the Petitioner should be allowed to carry on with these activities on an undertaking to remove the structures once the acquisition process is complete and compensation is paid but, in the meantime, the Section 351 notices should be stayed so that the commercial activity

¶23

Page 2 of 3 1st March 2024

¶24

919-920-921-OSWP-671-2024.DOC

¶25

can continue to flourish in this illicitly constructed and unauthorised structures.

¶26

4. We decline to use our Writ jurisdiction to assist the Petitioners in this enterprise.

¶27

5. The prayer to expedite the acquisition process is also rejected.

¶28

6. We do, however, expedite the process of enforcement of the Section 351 notices.

¶29

7. At this stage, Mr Purohit learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions seeks leave to withdraw these Petitions.

¶30

8. These Petitions are accordingly dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn.

¶31

(Kamal Khata, J)

¶32

(G. S. Patel, J)

¶33

Page 3 of 3 1st March 2024

Suresh Govindan Nair v. the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, Mcgm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Govindan Nair v. the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, Mcgm

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

Charushila M. Vaidya and 17 Ors. Vs State of Mahrashtra through Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Mohammed Sajid Mohd Ismail Shaikh and 4 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Mohammed Sajid Mohd Ismail Shaikh and 4 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors. Gulam Sabir Mohammed Hanif and 4 Ors.

Bhaskaran Sreevalson Nair Vs the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai

Prakash Sakharam Guram Vs State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Department

Kusum Kiran Upadhyay Vs the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater for Greater Bombay