VAKIL GARDEN CITY Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.08.2010 which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(3.) IT is the further case of the petitioner as putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has constructed the compound wall pursuant to the joint development agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, the 2nd respondent in fact has connived with the 1st respondent authorities and therefore the impugned order came to be passed. It is his contention that he is entitled to retain the compound wall, since the same had been put up by the petitioner while developing the layout. Hence, it is contended that the action of the 1st respondent cannot be sustained and the impugned order directing the demolition requires to be quashed.