Bombay High Court
M/S. Kamakhya Properties Through ... vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation ... on 9 July, 2024
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
26.WP.8252-2019.DOCX
2024:BHC-AS:26918-DB
Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8252 OF 2019
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9350 OF 2019
M/s. Kamakhya Properties ...Petitioner
Versus
Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh Gole, i/b. A & G Legal Associates, for the Petitioner in
both Writ Petitions.
Mr. N. R. Bubna (online), for Respondent No.1 in both Writ
Petitions.
Mr. Sushil Shukla,i/b. MKS Legal Associates, for Respondent No.2 in
both Writ Petitions.
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 9th July 2024 PC:-
WRIT PETITION NO. 9350 OF 2019
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition concerns the communication dated 28th May 2019 made by the Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation. This communication declares that the Petitioner will Page 1 of 4 9th July 2024
26.WP.8252-2019.DOCX not have the right to use the access claimed by Respondent No.2- Society since the Petitioner has alternate access described in the last paragraph of this communication.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this communication was made without proper hearing. He submits that in terms of Clause 3.3.14 of Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 ("UDCPR"), it is the responsibility of the Corporation to provide access to a land-locked plot. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the so-called alternate access referred to in the impugned communication may also involve similar complications.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Society states that the Petitioner was never using the society's access. In any case, the society has already instituted a civil suit to restrain the Petitioner from laying any claim on this access. Learned counsel pointed out that there was a compound wall, and therefore, there is no question of the Petitioner using this access.
5. The record prima facie suggests that the Petitioner and the other affected parties were heard by the Commissioner. Besides, there is a civil suit pending between the society and the Petitioner regarding his access claim. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also admitted that the society's access was not being used because of the compound wall. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was entitled to such access after removing this compound wall.
Page 2 of 49th July 2024
26.WP.8252-2019.DOCX
6. Considering the above aspects, we should not interfere with the impugned communication. These are mainly civil disputes between the Petitioner and the society, and the civil suit is already pending. Besides, the Corporation's order refers to alternate access, which is described in the impugned communication.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of Clause 3.3.14 of UDCPR, 2020, it is the responsibility of the Corporation to provide access to land-locked properties. He states that the Petitioner will make a detailed representation to the Corporation within four weeks, urging the Corporation to exercise their powers under Clause 3.3.14 of UDCPR, 2020. He submits that the Corporation may be directed to decide such representation within some reasonable time.
8. This request made by the Petitioner is reasonable. Therefore, if some representation is made within four weeks from today by providing all details, maps, etc., then the Corporation must decide such representation within eight weeks from its receipt. While deciding this representation, the Corporation need not be influenced by its order dated 28th May 2019. The representation must be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. For this, the Corporation must hear not only the Petitioner but also any other parties that are likely to be affected, including Respondent No.2-society.
9. Therefore, by not interfering with the impugned communication dated 28th May 2019 but by issuing the above directions to consider the Petitioner's representation for invoking Page 3 of 4 9th July 2024
26.WP.8252-2019.DOCX the powers under Clause 3.3.14 of UDCPR, 2020, we dispose of Writ Petition No. 9350 of 2019.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8252 OF 2019
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the reliefs in this Petition will not survive considering the order made in Writ Petition No.9350 of 2019.
11. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.8252 of 2019 is disposed of.
12. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Page 4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 9th July 2024
Date: 10/07/2024 11:04:46