Subhash Bajirao Yeole v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai

2-OSWP-919-2024.DOC Sumedh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 919 OF 2024 Subhash Bajirao Yeole & Ors

...Petitioners

Versus

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors

...Respondents

Mr JS Kini, with Aum Kini i/b Sapna Krsihnappa, for the Petitioner. Mr Ritesh Jain, with Kalpesh A Bandre, for Respondent No. 5. Mr Milind More, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Ms Pooja Yadav, i/b Sunil Sonawane, for the Respondent-BMC.

CORAM

M.S. Karnik & Kamal Khata, JJ.

DATED:

6th May 2024 PC:- 1.

The parties have filed the Consent Terms. Advocate on record for the Petitioners submits that all of them are present in the Court and they have signed the Consent Terms. All the Petitioners are identified by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Respondent No. 5 is present in the Court. Learned counsel appearing for him identifies him. He says that the Consent Terms are duly signed by him. All concerned agree that they will abide by terms mentioned in the Consent Terms.

Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date:

2024.05.07 10:05:27 +0530 SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE 6th May 2024

2-OSWP-919-2024.DOC 2.

The Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Consent Terms. Undertakings are accepted. Parties to abide by the Consent Terms.

3.

Needless to mention if the permissions are already applied, the same will be considered expeditiously considering demolition took place in 2018. The Petitioners have vacated their respective tenements in 2016.

4.

It is made clear that the Consent Terms have not been signed by the State and the Municipal Corporation. Counsel for Respondent No. 5 submits that Respondent No. 3 landlord has appointed Respondent No. 5 as a developer. It is clarified that Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 are not signatories to the Consent Terms.

5.

Writ Petition is disposed of in view of the Consent Terms. (Kamal Khata, J) (M. S. Karnik, J) 6th May 2024