LexMASS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MASS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR. OCTOBER21, 2005 [RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Maharashtra Heritage Regulations, 1995-Removal of Hoardings from Heritage Precinct-Notice for-Representation before Heritage Conservation C Committee seeking, 'no objection '-Writ Petition on the ground that the premises was not a Heritage Precinct and only a location as it was not included in Heritage List-Dismissal of Petition-In appeal, held: Premises in question is a listed heritage in view of the Lists and the maps annexed thereto-However the order of this Court is stayed in view of Heritage Conservation Committee having agreed' to consider the representation to D obtain ' no objection' to the hoarding in question. Pursuant to a Writ Petition filed by Maharashtra Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) seeking removal of hoardings, High Court directed removal of appellant's hoardings. Consequently notice was issued by the respondents calling upon the appellant to remove its hoardings as the same E was erected in a Heritage Precinct Appellant filed a representation before MHCC seeking 'no objection' contending that the Precinct was not included in the heritage list. He also filed Writ Petition challenging the notice. High Court dismissed the Petition. In appeals to this Court appellants contended that the Precinct in F question was not a Heritage Precinct but only a location in view of the entries in the Schedule appended to Development Control Regulation No.67. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The intention of the State Government as has been culled out G by the Maharashtra Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) and affirmed by the Bombay High Court and as found by this Court is that the list as it exists includes the Precinct in question as Heritage Precinct. (460-Cj H 2. It is true as far as the Precinct in question is concerned, although - 454 MASS HOLDINGS PVT. LID ''·MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER MUMBAI 455 there is a separate map indicating the Precinct along with all other Precincts, A ·rt does not appear under the column "Nature of Monuments Buildings, Precincts etc." hut in the column headed "Location". But locations have generally been indicated in the list with reference to roads. A Precinct ~nnot be a "location" since it is really an area; in such circumstances it is reasonable to ascertain the intention of the State Government from the map B annexed to the list The fact that no map of any other location has been given coupled with the fact that only maps of Heritage Precincts have been given, would certainly indicate that the Precinct in question is indeed a listed Heritage Precinct as mentioned in the map. [459-D, E) 3. The MHCC has taken into consideration the nature of the list, C particularly the maps annexed thereto, to come to the conclusion that the mentioning of the Precinct in question under the heading of "location" was clearly not the intention of the State Government, but the intention was to treat the Precinct along with all other Precincts of which maps are given as heritage Precincts. The High Court endorsed this opinion. There is no reason to take a different view. ~dditionally the High Court has noted that MHCC D had said that ever since the time, when Development Control Regulation No. 67 came into force, all development proposals relating to buildings and properties situated in the Precincts had been submitted to it for clearance. This again indicates that the Precinct is a Grade-III Heritage site. [459-G, H; 460-A) E 4. Since the MHCC has agreed to consider the representation of the appellant to obtain a "no objection" to their hoarding, the operation of the order of this Court is stayed until the MHCC takes a decision. [460-F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6433 i>f2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2005 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3354 of2004. WITH C.A. Nos. 6434 and 6435 of2005. Arun Jaitley, P.H. Parekh, Bulchandani and Sumit Goel for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co. for the Appellant. V.A. Bahde, E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agrawala, Rishi Agrawala, Manu 455 F G H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Krishnan, Pallav Shishodia, Rakesh Khataria, D.N. Mishra and S.S. Shinde for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.