Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai v. Mr. Shaad Sardarsingh Randhawa

Rane * 1/2 * FA-506-2016.doc (sr. no.32) Wednesday,27/4/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2016 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 4693 OF 2006 M.C.G.M.

...Appellant V/s.

Mr. Shaad S. Randhawa ....Respondent * * * * * * Mr. Mohit Jadhav a/w. Mrs. M.R. Bhoir, Advocate for BMC, appellant. Mr. Suresh M. Jadhav, Advocate for the respondent. Coram :- Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

27th th April, 2016.

April, 2016.

P.C. :- P.C. :- 1).

Admit.

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Rane * 2/2 * FA-506-2016.doc (sr. no.32) Wednesday,27/4/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1220 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2016 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 4693 OF 2006 M.C.G.M.

...Applicant V/s.

Mr. Shaad S. Randhawa ....Respondent * * * * * * Mr. Mohit Jadhav a/w. Mrs. M.R. Bhoir, Advocate for BMC, applicant. Mr. Suresh M. Jadhav, Advocate for the respondent. Coram :- Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

27th th April, 2016.

April, 2016.

P.C. :- P.C. :- 1).

Mr. Jadhav, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant points out that, the permission of reconstruction granted to the respondent under the order impugned in the appeal does not correspond with the structures described in the schedule to the notice issued under Section 56(3)(b) under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, impugned in the suit. The permission therefore is apparently beyond the scope of the suit. Hence, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)