SANJAY SUSHIL BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Tondwalkar, learned counsel for the respondent/MCGM.

(2.) By this appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has assailed an order dtd. 18/1/2022 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Greater Mumbai whereby Notice of Motion No. 1035 of 2020 in L.C. Suit No. 531 of 2020 filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected.

(3.) The subject matter of the suit is a challenge to a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Sec. 53(1) of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (for short "MRTP Act"). The notice was responded by the appellant/plaintiff and a speaking order dtd. 18/1/2020 on the same was passed by the Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation. Perusal of notice under Sec. 53(1) of MRTP Act would indicate that what has been objected is to an unauthorized development, which is described under the Schedule along with a sketch. It is quite substantial and beyond an ordinary imagination. The schedule records that the appellant/plaintiff shall restore the premises as per the last approved plan, i.e., u/n. CE/6022/BPES/AM dtd. 29/10/2010 and restore parking area at the first floor by removing 23 number of rooms, indicated in red colour on the sketch. Further, the said notice issued under Sec. 53(1) offered an option to the appellant/plaintiff. The first option is to restore the premises as per the originally approved plans and the second option is to permit the appellant/plaintiff to apply under sec. 44 of the MRTP Act for retention of the said work before the Competent Authority/Executive Engineer, Building Proposal, within one month from the receipt of said notice. It appears from the record that in the past, regularization application, as permitted by the impugned notice for retention of the unauthorized work was made by the appellant/plaintiff. However, as seen from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation to which a reference has been made in the earlier order, (in paragraph 8 of the affidavit) it is stated that the appellant/plaintiff had submitted proposal for regularization of addition/alteration on 3/4/2019, which was rejected by the Building Proposal Department of the MCGM on 8/4/2019. It is stated that again the Architect had submitted the same proposal on 20/12/2019 and the same was again rejected on the very same day. It was further submitted that again an application was made on 10/1/2023 and the same was again rejected by MCGM on 22/1/2023. Thus, what is sought to be contended by the MCGM is that repeatedly applications were made for regularization and/or retention of the said structures and the same have been rejected. As to what is the nature of such rejection can be discussed hereunder.