Disposed

Geeta Kishor Waghela v. the Add. Collector(Western Suburb)

Bombay HC23 Jul 2024WP/962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Competent Authority order directing demolition of an allegedly unauthorised structure under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. As the structure was already demolished during proceedings, the challenge did not survive; the court permitted the petitioner to file a representation claiming the structure was authorised and directed its decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file representation/application before Respondent No.2 within 2 weeks; authority to decide it per law by 30 November 2024.

Geeta Kishor Waghela vs the Add… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

20-WP-962-2024.doc

¶2

Arjun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.962 OF 2024

¶5

Geeta Kishor Waghela …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Add. Collector (Western Suburb)& Ors. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ashwin S. Tripathi i/b Ms. Nilima Sarvagod, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶9

Ms. Anisha Didwania i/b Ms. Neha Bhosale, for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 30 JULY 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 25th May 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2−Competent Authority2, Slum Rehabilitation Authority. By the said Order, it is observed that

¶13

the Petitioner was in possession of an unauthorised construction and therefore a direction was given to the Petitioner to demolish the said unauthorised construction.

¶14

2. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that during the pendency of this Writ Petition the said construction has been demolished. However, he states that said construction was a legal construction. He states that the Petitioner be granted opportunity to file

¶15

¶16

20-WP-962-2024.doc

¶17

an appropriate Application before the Respondent No.2−Competent Authority, Slum Rehabilitation Authority for establishing the Petitioner’s claim that the said structure is an authorised structure.

¶18

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing following Order:

¶19

(i) As the structure in question is already demolished, the challenge to the impugned Order dated 25th May 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2−Competent Authority, Slum Rehabilitation Authority does not survive.

¶20

(ii) The Petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate Representation/Application before the Respondent No.2−Competent Authority within 2 weeks from today with regard to her contention that the structure in question is a legal and authorised structure. Let such Application be filed within a period of 2 weeks.

¶21

(iii) The Respondent No.2 to decide said Application in accordance with law on or before 30th November 2024.

¶22

4. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.

¶23

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶24

Geeta Kishor Waghela v. the Add. Collector(Western Suburb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Kishor Waghela v. the Add. Collector(Western Suburb)

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

Vibhushan Estates Private Limited vs District Deputy Registrar Co. Op Societies Mumbai -Iv and the Competent Authority

Atlas Copco (India) Limited (Now Known as Epiroc Mining India Limited) vs Prakash Govind Sane

Viva Divine Ventures vs Madhu Jeevan Jyoti Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Jagdish Harchand Punjabi vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Rajesh Dulichand Borkar vs State of Maharashtra

V H Property Solutions LLP vs State of Maharashtra