Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, SANDEEP V.MARNE
Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges mcgm road sanction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on natural justice and procedure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. importance of hearing affected parties. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. decision set aside; mcgm to reconsider. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. petition partly allowed with directions. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) taken in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA sanctioning new Road Line (RL) of 13.40 meters width in the land being developed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the resolution adopted by the Administrator of MCGM on 26 September 2024 and decisions communicated vide various letters for implementation of decision of sanction of RL have been challenged by the Petitioner.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the Petition are that Petitioner purchased property bearing CTS No.610A/1B/1 and 610A/1B/2 admeasuring 6344.04 sq.mtrs. at Village-Malad, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Mumbai-400 097. On 8 February 2005 the land was occupied partly
Petitioner was denied natural justice as no hearing was provided before sanctioning a public road through their property; decisions were set aside for non-application of mind and improper considerati....
Section 210 (1) (a) empowers the Commissioner to prescribe a street line for the first time without the prior approval of the Standing Committee (as has been done in the present case). It is only und....
Public landowner has preferential redevelopment rights on reserved slum land; conditional NOC cancellation valid for developer's failure to provide compliant plans for public amenities, subordinating....
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority can terminate a developer's appointment for inordinate delays in scheme implementation, emphasizing the developer's obligation to act proactively.
Section 265 of Act reads as vesting of public streets and their appurtenances in corporation.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding the regular line of the street for public interest and found that the impugned notices were legal under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
The Town Planning Scheme, sanctioned under the Gujarat Town Planning Act, is valid and serves public interest, overriding private claims and previous judicial orders regarding easementary rights.
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
