Manoj Jainath Yadav And Another v. Mumbai Metropoolitan Region Development Authority

Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date:

2024.10.25 18:13:24 +0530 HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.720 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13862 OF 2024 Manoj Jainath Yadav & Anr.

...Appellants vs.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority

...Respondent

Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Drupad S. Patil with D. R. Singh i/b Mr. Shailesh Rai for the Appellants.

Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar for the Respondent.

CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

DATED : 17th OCTOBER, 2024 P. C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2) The aforesaid Appeal impugning the Order dated 6th September 2024, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi in Notice of Motion No.1943 of 2024 in L.C. Suit No.998 of 2024, thereby dismissing the said Notice of Motion.

3) After hearing aforesaid Appeal and Interim Application, it transpires that a census certificate referred as document No.1 is not 1/3

considered in the body of the reasons, before passing the impugned speaking Order.

4) Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that, if the Respondent is ready to inquire in the matter afresh in the light of census certificate and pass a fresh speaking Order, the Appellants would withdraw the Appeal, provided the Respondent does not take coercive steps against the suit structure. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, agrees for the same. 5) In view of above, Appeal is liable to be disposed, accordingly. Hence, following order :-

ORDER

(a) The Respondent shall make a fresh inquiry under Section 53 of the MRTP Act and the relevant provisions. During said inquiry, the Respondent shall consider all the documents that Appellant has earlier filed alongwith his reply.

(b) Said inquiry shall be completed within one month from the date of this Order and a fresh speaking order be passed, accordingly.

(c) In case, the speaking Order is adverse to the suit structure, the Respondent shall not take coercive steps against the suit structure for a period of three weeks from the date of 2/3

said adverse Order, so as to provide sufficient time to the Appellants to challenge the said speaking Order in the aforesaid suit, after carrying out necessary amendment. (d) The speaking order passed by the Respondent be served on the Appellants within one week from the date of passing said order.

4) Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently. Interim Application No.13862 of 2024 is also disposed of.

[SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.] 3/3