Bombay High Court
Hitesh Prakash Jain vs Nish Developers Private Limited on 14 July, 2025
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
501-IAL-16680-25.doc
Sharayu Khot.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16680 OF 2025
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 16674 OF 2025
Hitesh Prakash Jain & Ors. ...Applicants /
Plaintiffs
Versus
Nish Developers Private Limited & Ors. ...Defendants
----------
Ms. Indira Labde for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Shashikant Surana i/by Mr. Madhur Surana for the Defendant
No. 1.
Mr. G.O. Giri i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.
Mr. Pawan Khairnar, S E, B & F, G / S Ward present.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J
DATE : 14 July 2025
ORDER :
SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT
1. The present Interim Application has been moved in view Digitally signed by SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT Date:
2025.07.15 of urgency, as the impugned Notices dated 10th July 2025 have been 18:56:30 +0530 issued by Defendant No. 2 - Corporation under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for demolition 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:04:42 ::: 501-IAL-16680-25.doc and calling upon the Plaintiffs to demolish their respective premises within 24 hours from receipt of the notices, failing which the same will be demolished by the Defendant No. 2 - Corporation at the risk of the Plaintiffs and the costs and expenses will be recovered from the Plaintiffs.
2. Ms. Indira Labde, the learned Counsel for the Applicants / Plaintiffs had mentioned the matter today in view of the Corporation visiting the respective premises of the Plaintiffs in the afternoon for carrying out demolition and accordingly, the Interim Application has been placed on the production board at 3:00 p.m.
3. The learned Counsel for the Applicants / Plaintiffs has referred to an order dated 13th March 2025 which had been passed in case of a similar flat owners who had filed Writ Petition in this Court. The Writ Petition had been withdrawn by recording the statement of Defendant - Corporation that until the next date, when the Interim Application was moved in the Suits filed, no steps would be taken pursuant to the identical notices issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act.
2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:04:42 :::
501-IAL-16680-25.doc
4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants / Plaintiffs has accordingly sought for a similar order to be passed. She states that otherwise the present Suit would become infructuous, as it seeks prayer of directing the Defendant No. 1 - Developer to issue NOC in order that the Plaintiffs may make an Application to the Defendant No. 2 - Corporation for regularization of their respective premises.
5. The learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 - Developer has referred to prior litigation which had been instituted by the Defendant No. 5 - One Avighna Park CHSL representing the flat owners of the subject building, wherein prayer had been sought regarding regularization of unauthorised construction of the subject premises. Suit No. 232 of 2024 filed by One Avighna Park CHSL had been withdrawn as permitted by order dated 12th August 2024.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 1 - Developer has also referred to an Affidavit cum Declaration dated 17th August 2024 of the Plaintiff No. 1, wherein he has stated that the carrying out works and making changes to his premises were not approved by the Defendant No. 1 - Developer and the Defendant No. 2 - Corporation or any other Competent Authority. He had further 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:04:42 ::: 501-IAL-16680-25.doc stated on oath that the making of allegations against the Developer and the Suit filed by the Society was to regularize the flats and for securing interim relief against MCGM. He has further stated on oath that as member of the Society he supported these actions due to a misunderstanding on his part, influenced by misleading information provided by the Society's office bearers and other members, who were taking the lead in these litigation on behalf of the group.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 1 - Developer has submitted that inspite of such Affidavit cum Declaration, the Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit. He has stated that incentive FSI of the Defendant No. 1 - Developer is required to be utilised for regularising such unauthorised construction and the costs of which are required to be borne by the Plaintiffs, subject to which Defendant No. 1 - Developer would issue the requisite NOC.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs has sought time to take instructions.
9. The Defendant No. 2 - Corporation states that till next date, no steps will be taken pursuant to the impugned Notices dated 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:04:42 ::: 501-IAL-16680-25.doc 10th July 2025. The statement is accepted.
10. Interim Application accordingly, is stood over to 23rd July 2025 on the Supplementary Board.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:04:42 :::