Natwarlal Hiralal Agarwal And Anr vs The Municipalcorporation For ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 641 Bom

                                                                           5-105-2021-IA=.doc


                         Uday S. Jagtap
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 105 OF 2021
                                                             IN
                                              FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 102 OF 2021

                         Natwarlal H. Agarwal & Anr.                      .. Applicants
                               Vs.
                         The Municipal Corporation for
                         Greater, Mumbai                                  .. Respondent
                                                         .....
                         Mr. Girish Godbole i/b Manoj S. Mhambrey for the applicants
                         Ms. Madhuri More for the respondent - MCGM

                                                          CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2021 P.C.

1. Heard Mr. Godbole, the learned Counsel for the applicants.

2. A question before the trial Court was that whether the applicants / appellants have proved the impugned Notice dated 14th October, 2011 issued by the respondent pursuant to a Notice dated 10th February, 2011 under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act was contrary to the provisions of the said Act. The learned Trial Court returned its finding in the negative for the reasons that the void area between the tie beams qua flats on 2nd, 3rd and 5th floor have been unauthorizedly refilled again and again by the appellants / flat owners.

3. Mr. Godbole, after drawing my attention to the sanctioned plan persuaded me to accept that the tie beams are a part of Digitally signed by sanctioned plan as per Exhibit-9. Prima facie, it appears that the UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP SHIVAJI Date:

JAGTAP    2021.01.13
          10:53:47
          +0530



                                                                                                1 of 2
                                                  5-105-2021-IA=.doc

void portions are being refilled by the occupants of the flat nos.2 to 5, which were earlier demolished by the appellants themselves.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent however, submits for grant of some time in order to take instructions from the concerned Authority as to whether the tie beams are a part of the main structure and the sanctioned plan.

5. Prima facie, the findings and the reasons arrived at by the Trial Court are not in consonance with the facts and evidence on record.

6. As the Court below by its order dated 22 nd October, 2011 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo, which came to be extended from time to time till the Notice of Motion came to be disposed of and thereafter has been pleased to grant stay for a period of 4 weeks after the impugned judgment and order was passed on 9th December, 2020, interest of justice would be subserved if the said order is continued further till the next date.

7. As such, there shall be an interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Interim Application. The learned Counsel for the respondent shall, after taking instructions from the concerned Authority, make an appropriate statement on the adjourned date.

8. Stand over to 2nd February, 2021.

(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.)

2 of 2