Abdul Karim Habib Memonji v. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the unauthorised development has been demolished by the respondent and his prayer in this petition is that the respondent be directed to re-construct the demolished construction because it was not unauthorised. We have carefully considered…
- Para 33. We find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take other steps which are available to him in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
Judgment
Abdul Karim Habib Memonji. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay. .... Mr. C. K. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Mrs. N. V. Sanglikar for the Respondent. ..... ...Petitioner. ...Respondent. CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI,C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. August 23, 2004. P.C.:
#1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. A reply to this notice has been filed and pursuant to that, an order has been passed on 1st January 2004 in which the petitioner was directed to remove the unauthorised development.
#2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the unauthorised development has been demolished by the respondent and his prayer in this petition is that the respondent be directed to re-construct the demolished construction because it was not unauthorised. We have carefully considered the submission advanced by the petitioner. In our considered opinion, we cannot grant this prayer in our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
#3. We find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take other steps which are available to him in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 55; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 01 Jan 2004. The bench was D Y CHANDRACHUD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.