Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S.Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.
Kishore – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 712 of 2015, Civil Application (W) No. 3101 of 2018
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Urban Development Department - Challenge to order under Section 47 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The court discussed the ownership of the land, the validity of building permissions, and the authority of the Corporation to grant building permission. The court found that the appellate Authority was justified in directing the Corporation to re-consider the issue of building permission in the light of the ownership of the land and the adjudication by the Civil Court. The court clarified that the Corporation on remand should only consider the question of building permission and not the petitioner's title.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of half portion of Plot No.9 and Plot No.10 and sought to challenge the cancellation of building permissions and commencement certificate by the Corporation. The petitioner's ownership was recognized in previous suits, but the Corporation cancelled the permissions based on the layout plan showing the land as open space.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate Authority was justified in directing the Corporation to re-consider the issue of building permission in the light of the ownership of the land and the adjudication by the Civil Court. The court clarified that the Corporation on remand should only consider the question of building permission and not the petitioner's title.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the land, the validity of building permissions, and the authority of the Corporation to grant building permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Corporation on remand should only consider the question of building permission and not the petitioner's title, as the Corporation had no jurisdiction to scrutinize the petitioner's title.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court discharged the rule, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT
A.S.Chandurkar, J. - The challenge raised in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department, in proceedings under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the Act of 1966) as well as the notice dated 13.01.2015 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from dispossessing or interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner over the property in question.
2. The facts relevant for considering the prayers made in the writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of half portion of Plot No.9 and Plot No.10 admeasuring about 3618 square feet having Khasra No.441 in the area known as Ramajichi Wadi, Nagpur. The petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land from Shri Ramaji Sawarkar by a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1986. The petitioner's name has been accordingly mutated in the City Survey record and he has been paying property taxes as demanded by the Corporation. The petitioner had filed R.C.S.No.1443 of 1987 against one Shri Vasant Anwane seeking a declaration that the said defendant had no right to interfere in the possession of the petitioner. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 30.12.1991. Thereafter the petitioner filed R.C.S.No.1782 of 1993 on 06.09.1993 against the Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short, the Trust) challenging the action of the Trust in affixing its signboard on his property. This suit was decreed on 27.01.1999 and it was declared that the Trust had no authority to affix its signboard on the premises in question. A decree of perpetual injunction was also passed. This decree has since attained finality. The petitioner thereafter sought amalgamation of both the plots owned by him and such permission was granted by the Corporation on 26.08.2005 by imposing certain conditions. Thereafter the building plan submitted by the petitioner was sanctioned on 05.10.2005 by issuing a demand note in that regard. The petitioner claims to have paid the requisite amount as demanded. Thereafter on 07.12.2007 commencement certificate/ building permission was granted to the petitioner.
3. It appears that a complaint was made against the sanction of the building plan and grant of commencement certificate by one Vishva Prerak Pragati Mandal. Acting on the said complaint, the Corporation in March 2008 proceeded to cancel the order of amalgamation dated 26.08.2005, building permission granted on 14.02.2006 and commencement certificate granted on 07.12.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 388 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 read with Section 47 of the Act of 1966 before the State Government. Since the aforesaid appeal was kept pending without any adjudication, this writ petition was filed on 05.02.2015 praying for a direction to be issued to the State Government to decide the aforesaid appeal in accordance with law. During pendency of the writ petition, the said appeal came to be decided by the State Government on 30.01.2016. The proceedings were remanded to the Corporation to take a decision afresh in the light of the sanctioned plan of 1965 after considering the aspect of ownership coupled with the orders passed by the Civil Court. By amending the writ petition this order dated 30.01.2016 has also been challenged. Since the complainant - Vishwa Prerak Pragati Mandal was not impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition, it has filed Civil Application No 3101 of 2018 on 31.01.2018 seeking leave to intervene in the writ petition. By the order dated 22.03.2019 the aforesaid Civil Application was ordered to be considered when the writ petition was heard finally.
4. Shri R.L.Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner after referring to various factual aspe
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation, as the Planning Authority, has the jurisdiction to consider the grant of building permission based on applicable Rules and Re....
Authority under the Act of 1976 exercises a quasi-judicial power which implies observing of the principles of natural justice and to conclude that the occupants are not entitled to occupy the plots. ....
Possession rights established through prior court judgments prevail over unresolved title disputes, and municipal decisions regarding land development must adhere to judicially recognized ownership.
The court affirmed that the approved layout plan of 2008 designates specific plots as residential, rejecting claims of their designation as park facilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent corporation has the authority to suspend development permission and must provide both parties with an opportunity to present th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
