IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY S.C. ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005under garages nos. 1 to 5 as well as the shed. The property beingthe Government property, the breaches were communicated tothe Collector, Mumbai City and the garage nos. 1 to 5 nevercomprised part of breaches before. It was only in the year 1998the garages have been shown to the constituting a breach by theoffice of the Collector. It is further observed by the AssistantCommissioner in his order that shed is constructed incompulsory open space of the building. Again Municipal recordin the form of license issued u/sec. 394 of the said Act as well asassessment record indicated that shed or awning is in existencefrom 196364 or even before the shed.10. It is further observed by the Assistant Commissioner thatthe permission for awning granted on 3.10.1955 as well as4.2.1960 by the Collector, Mumbai City along with letter fromGovernment Architect issued under no. P43/1396/1957subsequently revoked the permission of awning vide letter no.S/SS/BBR/LND/157(203) dated 5.7.1978 as well as his letter ofeven number dated 5.1.1990. It is further observed by AssistantCommissioner that the land on which the building of theSociety stands belongs to the Collector and the office ofCollector has revoked the permission for awning thrice in 1978,1990 and 1998. However, they have not demolished the awningand taken revocation to it's logical end and hence thedefendant justified the action of Assistant Commissioner andclaimed that the impugned notice and order are legal and valid.
11SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005Hence, prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.11. Following issues are framed at Exh.6 and my findings onthem for the reasons stated below are as under:ISSUES1) Does plaintiff prove that notice bearing no.A/BFII/351/3847/0506 dated 11.5.2005 andorder bearing no. Asst.C/A/3814/0506 dated20.6.2005 in respect of suit structure bydefendant is illegal and void?2) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/sec. 527 ofMMC Act?3) Does defendant prove that plaintiff constructedShed of GI Sheets in compulsory open space &also unauthorizedly changed user of Garage toKitchen/Store/Staff Dinning ?4) Is the plaintiff entitled for relief of declarationclaimed ?5) Is the plaintiff entitled for relief of injunctionclaimed?6) What order and costs ?F<strong>IN</strong>D<strong>IN</strong>GSIssue No. 1In the affirmative.Issue No. 2In the negative.Issue No. 3In the negative.
Page 1 and 2: 1SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005IN THE COU
Page 3 and 4: 3SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005addressed
Page 5 and 6: 5SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005deteriorat
Page 7 and 8: 7SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005arrears of
Page 9: 9SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005impugned n
Page 13 and 14: 13SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005addressed
Page 15 and 16: 15SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005alteratio
Page 17 and 18: 17SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005parties i
Page 19 and 20: 19SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005by Archit
Page 21 and 22: 21SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005certifica
Page 23 and 24: 23SC Suit No. 2572 of 200524. The e
Page 25 and 26: 25SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005order is
Page 27 and 28: 27SC Suit No. 2572 of 20054.4.1995)
Page 29 and 30: 29SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005of quasi
Page 31 and 32: 31SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005on the pa

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY S.C. ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?