Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 501 (BOM)

Joaozinho George Rodrigues v. Chief Town Planner

2020-03-04

M.S.SONAK, NUTAN D.SARDESSAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : M. S. Sonak, J. Heard Mr. Vivek Rodrigues with Mr. V. Naik for the Petitioners, Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Mr. Ganesh Naik for the Respondent No.3, Mr. C. A. Coutinho with Mr. I. Santimano for Respondent No.5 and 6 and Mr. Shivan Desai for the Respondent No.7. 2. This petition was tagged along with PIL Writ Petition No.2 of 2019 which we have today disposed of. 3. The petitioners in this petition, have certain grievances in relation to the property bearing Survey No.249/1 which was also the subject matter of PIL Writ Petition No.2 of 2019. The grievance of the petitioners is that the property bearing Survey No.249/1 is shown to be admeasuring 1907 sq.mtrs. However, they contend that in the year 1967 there was a partition and an area of 524 sq.mtrs. was allotted to the predecessor in title of the petitioners. Therefore they contend that this area of 524 sq.mtrs. is required to be deducted from the total area of 1907 sq.mtrs. They contend that since, this has not been done, the respondent no.7 (Builder) has misrepresented to the authorities and consumed excess FAR. On this basis, several reliefs have been applied for by the petitioners in relation to the permissions granted to the respondent no.7 to construct the building in the property bearing Survey No.249/1 at Curchorem, Cacora. 4. The respondent no.7 disputes all the aforesaid contentions and submits that this petition may not be entertained because the petitioners have already instituted a suit in the Civil Court raising all such contentions. Respondent No.7 also questions the bonafides of the petitioners in instituting the present petition. 5. The record indicates that the petitioners have already instituted a Regular Civil Suit No.4/2018/A in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem in which the petitioners, have raised all the aforesaid issues. Even otherwise, the issues raised by the petitioners in the present petition involve adjudication into the disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently undertaken in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In any case, now that the petitioners have already instituted a suit and such suit is pending, we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to entertain the present petition. 6. In any case, now that the petitioners have already instituted a suit and such suit is pending, we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to entertain the present petition. 6. Thus, leaving all contentions of all parties open to be decided in Regular Civil Suit No.4/2018/A, we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs.