Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 31536/2013. Case: Campa Cola Residents Asso. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 31536/2013|
|Party Name:||Campa Cola Residents Asso. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv., Mr.Gopal Jain, Adv., Mr.Amar Dave, Adv., Mrs.Nandini Gore, Adv., Ms.Tahira Karanjawala, Adv., Ms.Devina Sehgal, Adv., Mrs.Manik Karanjawala, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr.Goolam E.Vahanvati, AG, Mr.Pallav Shishodia, Sr.Adv., Mrs.U.H.Deshpande, Adv., Mr.J.J.Xavier, Adv., Mr.S.Sukumaran, Adv., Mr.Anand ...|
|Judges:||Mr. G.S. Singhvi and Mr. C. Nagappan, JJ.|
|Issue:||Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 53(3); Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 342, 351|
|Judgement Date:||October 01, 2013|
Taken on board.
This petition is directed against order dated 26.9.2013 by which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to nullify the decision taken by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, 'the Corporation') not to approve the amended plans submitted on behalf of the petitioners and its members - co-operative housing societies.
By detailed order dated 27.2.2013, this Court dismissed Civil Appeal Nos.7934-38 of 2012 Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and others filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court not to restrain the Corporation from demolishing unauthorized and illegal constructions made on the buildings in Campa Cola compound. Simultaneously, Transferred Case (Civil) No.55 of 2012 Campa Cola Residents Association and another v. State of Maharashtra filed for regularization of the unauthorized and illegal construction was also dismissed. The operative portion of that order read as under:
In the result, the appeals and the transferred case are dismissed and it is declared that there is no impediment in the implementation of notices issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the 1888 Act and order dated 3/8.12.2005 passed by the competent authority and the Corporation shall take necessary action in the matter at the earliest.
We also direct that the State Government and its functionaries / officers as also the officers / employees of the Corporation shall not put any hurdle or obstacle in the implementation of notices issued under Section 351 of the 1888 Act.
It is needless to say that the flat buyers shall be free to avail appropriate remedy against the developers/builders.
After about two months, Rajesh S.Parekh and others filed Writ Petition No.1076/2013 before the High Court for issue of a direction to the Corporation not to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction on the ground that the action taken by the Corporation was ultra vires the provision contained in Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act'). The same was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 29.4.2013. SLP(C)No.17002/2013 filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 2.5.2013. However, five months time was granted to the petitioners and other occupants of illegal...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL