HANUMANTRAO MAROTRAO Vs. NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-343
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on April 06,2022

Hanumantrao Marotrao Appellant
VERSUS
NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 concerning a structure occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged orders passed by two Courts below holding that appeal challenging the aforesaid notices was not maintainable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "Act of 1949 ").
(2.)Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that perusal of the notice dtd. 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 would show that it was clearly a notice under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 for the reason that under the aforesaid provision, it would be the Commissioner or an Authorized Officer delegated by the said Commissioner, who could issue such a notice for demolition of the structure in question. It was contended that under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, a designated officer could only ask the owner or the occupier of such a structure, which was found to be in a ruinous condition or dangerous to any person occupying the same, to remove or repair such a structure. On this basis, it was submitted that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, was clearly maintainable and that therefore, the two Courts below erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.
(3.)On the other hand, Mr. Quazi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that perusal of the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018 would show that such notices could not be said to be issued under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949, as the designated officer had asked the petitioners to remove the structure and thereafter indicated to them to vacate the structure within three days for removal of the same by exercising powers under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949. It was submitted that although the specific provision of sec. 264 of the Act of 1949 may not have been mentioned, but the contents of the notices demonstrated that such notices were clearly issued under the said provision. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned orders did not deserve any interference.


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