SUNBEAM HIGH TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MCGM
LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-261
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Decided on March 26,2018

SUNBEAM HIGH TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED And ORS Appellant
VERSUS
MCGM And ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.N. Deshmukh, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of demolition of petitioner's subject structures by the Respondent/Corporation on 28/9/2017 without issuing any notice of demolition or otherwise to the Petitioners. In the circumstances, the specific prayer clause (b) of the petition is for direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to reconstruct the demolished structures and to repair and relocate the two porta cabins in its original place. In the alternative, it is further prayed that the Respondents be ordered and directed to permit the petitioner to reconstruct the subject structure demolished on 28/9/2017 or to allow the Petitioners to reconstruct the same subject to the Respondents reimbursing the cost whatever shall be incurred by the Petitioner for reconstruction.
(2.) It is the case of the Petitioners that one Raghunath Mahadev Salvi was the owner and in occupation of land admeasuring 2000 sq. yard at Survey No.39(part) CTS No.1 situated at Village Valnai from 1952 and had constructed 8 residential structures each admeasuring 375 sq.ft. and was making payment of nonagricultural assessment tax since 1972 as per the order of the Revenue authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that in addition to above residential structures there was one more structure admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. which was also assessed by Respondents on which property tax was regularly paid.
(3.) The entire property that is the above referred structures were sold by his legal heirs to one Mr. R. Mugum Pariar, who transferred and assigned all his rights title and interest in respect of the subject structures in favour of one Sambhaji Dattu Chauvan from whom the Petitioner came into possession of the subject structures and was in occupation of the same, which consists of 2800 sq. ft. used for running a restaurant on obtaining eating house license and shop and establishment license both issued by the Respondent department. It is also the case of the Petitioner that he was also having a Bar for which he was issued with F.L.III license by the competent authority as well as was issued with license from the Food and Drug Department required for the purpose of carrying out business of Restaurant and Bar.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.