Arputharaj Nadar vs Designated Officer Assistant ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1986 Bom

osk                                                                 wpl-1145-2017.odt


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

                    WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1145 OF 2017


        Mr.Arputharaj Nadar                                     ]
        Age : 35 years, Occ.: Business                          ]
        R/o.Room No.9, 2nd Floor,                               ]
                                                                ]
        A-4, Phase No.1,                                        ]
        Shree Complex,                                          ]
        Kalyan (West)                                           ] Petitioner

        Versus

  1.    Designated Officer                                      ]
        Assistant Engineer                                      ]
        (Building and Factory)                                  ]
        C-Ward Office, 76,                                      ]
        Shrikant Palekar Marg,                                  ]
        Chandanwadi,                                            ]
        Mumbai - 400 002                                        ]
                                                                ]
  2.    Assistant Municipal Commissioner                        ]
        C-Ward Office, 76,                                      ]
        Shrikant Palekar Marg,                                  ]
        Chandanwadi,                                            ]
        Mumbai - 400 002                                        ]
                                                                ]
  3.    Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai                 ]
        Through its Commissioner                                ]
        Having its office at Mahapalika Marg,                   ]
        Opp. CST Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.                        ]
                                                                ]
  4.    State of Maharashtra                                    ]
        (to be served through the office of                     ]
        Learned Government Pleader,                             ]
        High Court, Mumbai)                                     ] Respondents



      • Mr.Viral Rathod for the Petitioner.
      • Mr.A.I.I. Patel, Addl. Government Pleader for the State.
      • Ms.Pallavi Thakar for MCGM.
                                                                                    1/7


::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2017 00:18:39 :::
 osk                                                                 wpl-1145-2017.odt




                 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &
                        DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 25 th APRIL, 2017.

JUDGMENT : (Per Dr.Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.)

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,

by consent of the parties.

2] By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the Notice

dated 27th October, 2016 issued by the Respondent-Municipal

Corporation under Section 55 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and the consequent

order dated 6th April, 2017 passed by Respondent No.1-the

Designated Officer, Assistant Engineer (Building & Factory) of

Mumbai Municipal Corporation for demolition of the subject

structure.

3] As per the Petitioner, he is the owner of the said

structure, which is a shop rented out to "Rina Tours and

osk wpl-1145-2017.odt

Travels". The said structure was purchased by the Petitioner's

father on 6th February, 1991 by entering into a sale agreement.

Since then the Petitioner is in occupation of the same. It is ad-

measuring about 10x10x10 sq.ft. and situated on ground floor

adjoining to the building known as "Mahavir Mansion" situated

in between Building Nos.122B and 132, Kika Street, Gulalwadi,

Mumbai.

4] It is the contention of the Petitioner that he is having

the shop and establishment licence issued for the business of

"Rina Tours and Travels" in the name of Tapan Kumar Jana.

The Petitioner is also having the electricity and telephone bills

issued on the said premises. On the receipt of the impugned

Notice dated 27th October, 2016, the Petitioner has produced all

this documentary evidence before Respondent No.1-Designated

Officer of the Municipal Corporation. However, despite that the

Corporation/Designated Officer has ignoring the said

documentary evidence passed the order of demolition of the

said structure on count that it is illegal and unauthorized.

5]               The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned





 osk                                                                   wpl-1145-2017.odt

notice issued under Section 55 of the MRTP Act is itself not

legal and valid as his structure is permanent one and not a

temporary one. Moreover, according to the Petitioner,

Respondent No.1-Designated Officer has not considered the

documents produced by him which clearly prove that his

structure is legal and authorized. Hence according to him, the

impugned notice and the order passed by Respondent No.1-

Designated Officer needs to be quashed and set-aside.

6] Per contra, learned counsels for Respondents has

supported the said notice and order by pointing out that the

structure which the Petitioner has erected is totally

unauthorized. It is temporary and not at all a permanent one.

It is partly made of MS-sheet walls and covered with MS-sheet

roof. The Petitioner is having no documentary evidence to

prove that said structure was constructed after obtaining

requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. It is

further submitted that Respondent No.1-Designated Officer of

the Municipal Corporation has considered all the documentary

evidence produced by the Petitioner and passed the impugned

order. Hence no interference is warranted in the same.

 osk                                                          wpl-1145-2017.odt




7]               We have heard these rival submissions of learned

counsels and with their assistance we have perused the

impugned notice issued to the Petitioner, which shows that the

subject structure is of semi permanent nature made of partly

BM-sheet walls and partly MS-sheet walls. It is covered with

MS-sheet roof. Whether the structure is temporary or

permanent; it was for the Petitioner to show that he has

constructed or erected the same after obtaining requisite

permission from the Municipal Corporation and after getting

the plan sanctioned for the same. The Petitioner was given

sufficient opportunity to prove the legality of the said

structure. In response to the show cause notice issued to him,

the Petitioner has approached Respondent No.1-Designated

Officer and produced all the record/the documentary evidence

which was in possession.

8] The perusal of the impugned order passed by

Respondent No.1-Designated Officer reveals that he has

considered all the documents, which were produced on record

by the Petitioner and after properly considering the same

osk wpl-1145-2017.odt

found that none of the document prove that the structure is in

existence since prior to the datum line or it was constructed

with requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation after

getting the plan sanction. It is pertinent to note that the

Petitioner has relied upon the documents like the photocopy of

the rent receipt which does not mention the description

regarding authenticity of the suit structure. The Petitioner has

then produced on record "Registration Certificate" under the

Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act. However, it does

not again mention the remarks regarding authenticity of the

said structure. Similarly, the telephone or electricity bills on

which the Petitioner has relied upon can not prove the legality

or authenticity of the said structure. The Petitioner has not

produced before Respondent No.1-Designated Officer or even

before this Court any document prior to 1st April, 1962, which

is the datum line for commercial structure to be considered in

tolerated category. The Petitioner has not produced either

before Respondent No.1-Designated Officer or before this Court

any permission/approval from the Executive Engineer building

proposal for erecting such structure. He has not even alleged

that the said structure was constructed after obtaining

osk wpl-1145-2017.odt

requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation.

9] Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the subject

structure is situated on the open space, which is in effect a

path way to the adjoining buildings. The very description of the

subject premises, as given by the Petitioner makes it clear that

the structure is erected in between two buildings bearing

Nos.122B and 132. Thus, it is clearly obstructing the access to

these two buildings. It is also pertinent to note that the

structure is purely of a temporary make-shift nature.

10] Hence, taking into consideration totality of facts and

circumstances, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we do not

find any grounds or reasons being made out to interfere with

the impugned notice or the order. This Writ Petition, therefore,

being without any merits, stands dismissed.

11]              Rule is discharged.



[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]                [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]