Bombay High Court Directs Municipal Corporation to Consider Regularization Applications Before Demolition in Mall Mezzanine Case. Occupants of Mall Entitled to Submit Regularization Application Under Section 53(3) of MRTP Act Due to Delayed Action by Corporation.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 180
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, occupants of a mall called 'Dreams the Mall' in Bhandup-West, challenged a notice issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) directing them to remove unauthorized mezzanine floors and restore unauthorized amalgamation of shops within one month, with a threat of removal by the Corporation. The petitioners had replied to the notice and requested that their reply be treated as an application for regularization under Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act, expressing willingness to comply. The Corporation, however, passed orders rejecting the regularization application on the ground that it was beyond the statutory period. The Court observed that Section 53 contemplates the Corporation taking action at the earliest, but there was no evidence that the Corporation initiated proceedings when the construction was ongoing. The Court found the Corporation's reliance on complaints unacceptable and noted that the sanctioned plan was with the Corporation from the beginning, so ignorance of the unauthorized construction was not plausible. The Court held that the delayed action by the Corporation entitled the petitioners to submit a regularization application. The Court further held that after issuing notice under Section 53(1), the Corporation is obliged to decide the reply or representation by a reasoned order before taking coercive action. The Court directed the Corporation to consider the petitioners' applications for regularization and pass appropriate reasoned orders within four weeks, and stay the coercive steps until then.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Regularization of Unauthorized Construction - Section 53(3) MRTP Act - Duty to Consider Application - The Corporation issued notice under Section 53(1) to occupants to remove unauthorized mezzanine floors. Occupants filed reply seeking regularization under Section 53(3). The Court held that the Corporation is obliged to decide the reply/representation by a reasoned order before taking coercive action. The delayed action by the Corporation entitles the occupants to submit regularization application. (Paras 1-4)

B) Town Planning - Notice under Section 53(1) - Obligation to Decide Representation - Section 53 MRTP Act - The Court held that issuance of notice is not sufficient; the authority must take a reasoned decision on the reply and then proceed in accordance with law. (Para 4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Respondent-Corporation is obliged to consider the application for regularization under Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act before taking coercive action for removal of unauthorized mezzanine floors.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court directed the Respondent-Corporation to consider the petitioners' applications for regularization under Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act and pass appropriate reasoned orders within four weeks. Coercive steps pursuant to the impugned notices shall remain stayed until then.

Law Points

  • Section 53 MRTP Act
  • regularization of unauthorized construction
  • duty to consider representation
  • delayed action by authority
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014:BHC-OS:10164-DB

Writ Petition (Lodg) No.2513 of 2014, Writ Petition (Lodg) No.2528 of 2014, Writ Petition (Lodg) No.2517 of 2014

2014-09-23

Anoop V. Mohta, F.M. Reis

2014:BHC-OS:10164-DB

Mr. A.M. Saraogi for Petitioners, Mr. D.A. Nalawade GP for Respondent No.1, Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for Respondent No.2-Corporation, Mr. R.J. Mane AGP for Respondent No.3, Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Virendra T. Dubey for Respondent Nos.4 & 5

Ajit Kalyanrao Nigde And 12 Ors., Beena Bharat Shah And 31 Ors., K. Shivapandian And 7 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging notice under Section 53(1) of MRTP Act for removal of unauthorized mezzanine floors and amalgamation of shops.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought direction to treat their reply as regularization application and stay coercive steps.

Filing Reason

Corporation issued notice to remove unauthorized mezzanine floors and restore shops, threatening removal if not complied within 30 days.

Previous Decisions

Corporation passed orders rejecting regularization application on ground of delay beyond statutory period.

Issues

Whether the Corporation is obliged to consider the regularization application under Section 53(3) before taking coercive action. Whether the delayed action by the Corporation entitles the occupants to submit regularization application.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners submitted that they replied to notice and sought regularization under Section 53(3), expressing willingness to comply. Corporation argued that regularization application was beyond statutory period and they acted on complaints.

Ratio Decidendi

The authority issuing notice under Section 53(1) of MRTP Act is obliged to decide the reply/representation by a reasoned order before taking coercive action. Delayed action by the authority entitles the noticee to submit an application for regularization under Section 53(3).

Judgment Excerpts

The issuance of notice itself is not sufficient, but to take decision in accordance with law and after considering the reply/representation, by a reasoned order proceed to take action in accordance with law. The delayed action so taken by the Corporation is additional factor which in our view the Petitioners/occupants are entitled at least to submit their application for regularization.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966: 53(1), 53(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs Municipal Corporation to Consider Regularization Applications Before Demolition in Mall Mezzanine Case. Occupants of Mall Entitled to Submit Regularization Application Under Section 53(3) of MRTP Act Due to Delayed Action by...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Lease Dispute — Petitioner Seeks to Bring Subsequent Events on Record. Amendment Sought to Include Facts Regarding Dispossession After Filing of Suit, Held That Amendment Should Be Allowed as It Does ...