Jyoti Raju Nagar v. The Municipal Commissioner Of Greater Mumbai

Arun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 643 OF 2024 Suresh Govindan Nair

...Petitioner

Versus

The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai MCGM & Ors

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2024 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Jyoti Raju Nagar

...Petitioner

Versus

The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai & Ors

...Respondents

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.03.04 10:07:25 +0530 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 671 OF 2024 Bhaskaran Sreevalson Nair

...Petitioner

Versus

The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai & Ors

...Respondents

Mr Simil Purohit, with Vaibhav Sugdare, JK Shah, Pooja Shah, Rahul Gupta & Govind Munde, i/b RJ Law, for the Petitioners. Mr Suraj Gupte, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/643/2024. Ms Poonam Mital, AGP, for Respondent No 4-State, in WP/658/2024 & WP/671/2024.

Mr Kunal Waghmare, with Pooja Yadav, i/b Sunil Sonawane, for the

Respondent-MCGM.

Mr Pratik Tandel, Sub-Engineer (Development Plan), MCGM, present.

CORAM

G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ.

DATED:

PC:- 1.

These Petitions need to be commended for their inventiveness and for the flights of fancy or imagination with which they are conceived.

2.

The Petitioners have plots of land that are under reservation. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") has deposited the necessary amounts, and acquisition proceedings are under way but the lands are affected by existing structures and these have been subjected to notices inter alia under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("the MCGM Act"). 3.

The submission from the Petitioners is extraordinary. There is no dispute that there are indeed structures or that the Petitioners are themselves using these structures for commercial or some form of industrial activity. What is being urged by Mr Purohit is that the Petitioner should be allowed to carry on with these activities on an undertaking to remove the structures once the acquisition process is complete and compensation is paid but, in the meantime, the Section 351 notices should be stayed so that the commercial activity

can continue to flourish in this illicitly constructed and unauthorised structures.

4.

We decline to use our Writ jurisdiction to assist the Petitioners in this enterprise.

5.

The prayer to expedite the acquisition process is also rejected. 6.

We do, however, expedite the process of enforcement of the Section 351 notices.

7.

At this stage, Mr Purohit learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions seeks leave to withdraw these Petitions. 8.

These Petitions are accordingly dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn.

(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)