1. The petitioner prays for following substantial reliefs:
“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No. 2 and 3 to act upon the Petitioner's complaint dated 19 June, 2014 and 8 July, 2016 within a period of 4 (four) weeks and/or within such period as this Hon'ble Court deem fit;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 forthwith to initiate steps for demolition of the unauthroised structures standing on the said property within a period of 4 (four) weeks and/or within such period as this Hon'ble Court deem fit;”
2. It is the petitioner's case that under Consent Decree dated 29 August, 2012 in Suit No. 1584/2012 filed on the Original Side of this High Court, he became owner of the subject property. It is submitted that there are 15-16 structures on the property since prior to his acquiring the rights. After the decree was passed, petitioner claims that he made several representations to Corporation to take action against these illegal structures by removing them but no action was initiated. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2489/2014. By an order dated 27 June, 2016 the Division Bench disposed of the petition by passing following order:
“Parties through their Counsel. The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of requests made by the Petitioner the Respondent No. 3 for initiating action for demolition of unauthorised structure standing on CTS No. 210 and 210/1 (old Survey No. 4), Hissa No. 1 (part) situated at village Marol, Taluka: Andheri (E), Mumbai admeasuring 1855.5 sq. yards The Respondent No. 3 has not taken any action for removal of the unauthorised structure.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in regard to the aforesaid grievance the Petitioner had submitted a complaint Exhibit-F to the Respondent No. 3 on 19 June, 2014, but the Respondent No. 3 has not initiated any action as at. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties we are inclined to dispose of the Petition by directing Respondent No. 3 to look into the grievance of the Petitioner and to take appropriate action on the application of the Petitioner dated 19 June, 2014 Exhibit-F as expeditiously as possible according to law.
3. The Petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh detailed complaint to Respondent No. 3 along with relevant documents. On receipt of a fresh complaint along with relevant documents Respondent No. 3 shall take appropriate steps as aforesaid as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say that we have not commented on the detailed allegations made by the Petitioner regarding unauthorised construction. Respondent No. 3 is free to decide the application dated 19 June, 2014 as per law.
4. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that as Corporation did not take further steps in respect of the order passed by this Court, the present petition was preferred on 11 November, 2016 which is being heard from January, 2018. The Counsel has referred to an order passed by this Court on 28 August, 2018. The Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the officer concerned had visited the spot but it is difficult to locate the subject structures and identify them. This has been revealed in the affidavit filed by Pandurang N. Dabhade working as Designated Officer-II Building and Factory Department. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit-in-reply reads as under:—
“4. I say these respondent is willing to comply the Hon'ble Courts order therefore at the time of inspection we are able to identify one structure i.e. M/s. Hotel Hariprasad and accordingly we have issued Notice under section 488 of MMC Act for inspection of the structure and further action if any. Hereto Annex and marked at Exhibit-III a copy Notice U/S 488 of MMC Act.
5. I say that first tender my apology for not fully compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order within time. However these respondent will comply the remaining part as soon as we received Boundary plan from AE (DP) Dept. as early as possible.”
4. The petitioner has also field an additional affidavit disclosing certain circumstances in the reply.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for Corporation submits that as property could not be identified, the issue has to be referred to other Department and thereafter would be looked into accordingly. The matter was argued on 15 October, 2018 on which date we passed following order:—
“The Petitioner has already approached this Court by filing petition in respect of the same cause of action.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would take instructions in respect of withdrawal of the petition.
3. Stand over tomorrow i.e. 16 October, 2018.”
6. Today the Counsel submitted that matter be heard on merits. Therefore, the matter was heard on merits.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that this 2 petition on the same cause of action and grievance seems to be non-compliance of order passed on 27 June, 2016.
8. However, the learned Counsel appearing for Corporation submits that after taking necessary steps to get the property identified, Designated Authority would be in a position to reply to the petitioner accordingly. The Corporation authorities may take necessary steps strictly in accordance with law.
9. With aforesaid observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Comments