Latest news with #KamalKhata
News18
14 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
'Religious Claims Can't Justify Land Grab': Bombay HC Refuses To Recall Demolition Of Illegal Dargah
The court said assertions based on 'mob fury' or 'footfalls of people' cannot lend legitimacy to an illegal structure raised without any municipal permission. The Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief to a trust that sought protection for a structure it claimed was a historic Dargah, reiterating that no religious or charitable claim can override legal ownership and statutory compliance. Dismissing an interim application, a division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata made it clear that assertions based on 'mob fury" or 'footfalls of people" cannot lend legitimacy to an illegal structure raised without any municipal permission. The application was filed by Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole, representing a registered trust, seeking recall of the Court's earlier April 30 order which directed the demolition of a 17,610 sq. ft. structure on land owned by New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade & Anr. The trust claimed the structure was a Dargah dating back to 1882, based on entries in a government gazette, a 1982 sale deed, land records from 1989, and registration under the Charity Commissioner. However, the court noted that none of these documents proved ownership or sanctioned construction. The trust had also failed to produce a single valid municipal permission. 'Such defence cannot give right to an applicant to claim protection or continuation of a thoroughly illegal structure," the bench held. According to the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC), no permission had ever been granted for any construction on the site. Following dismissal of a civil suit in April 2025 which had challenged ownership of the land, the Corporation had issued a notice asking the trust to produce documents, none were submitted. The High Court criticised the trust for delaying tactics and said the application was an attempt to frustrate its demolition orders. 'This is a classic case of usurpation of the land… we are unable to accept that mere footfalls of people based on an assertion that this is a Dargah can prove that it is a legal structure," court observed. Court also rejected the argument that the trust was denied a hearing. It pointed out that a hearing had already been conducted in January 2025 under the MMC Act, and a subsequent demolition order was passed following due process. The bench further stated that even if the structure appeared in past land records or was referenced in sale deeds, those entries did not establish title, ownership, or legality. 'The applicants have entirely failed in proving they own the land or have permission… even for one square foot," court said. Finding no merit in the plea, court directed the Thane Municipal Corporation to proceed with the demolition and complete it within two weeks from the date of the order's uploading. view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 17:13 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay
Mumbai: Observing that there was 'overwhelming evidence of material suppression, misleading actions, and apparent collusion' between property developers in Uran and officers of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco), the Bombay high court recently ordered the Navi Mumbai planning authority to demolish an illegally constructed complex of five buildings in the Chanje village in Uran taluka in four weeks. HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay The village, about 15 minutes away from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority, has had improved connectivity with Mumbai since the inauguration of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link, otherwise known as Atal Setu, last year. 'We find this to be yet another case where the authorities have been complicit in promoting and tolerating illegal and unauthorised constructions, despite being consistently alerted through written complaints from citizens,' a division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed in their June 20 order. However, the respondents in the case—land owner Vivek Deshmukh and the developer, Vinayak Developers—approached the Supreme Court, which on June 27 granted an interim stay on the high court's order until it hears the case further. 'We make it clear that no eviction operation shall be carried out without the leave of this court,' the apex court said. The petition was filed in the high court by Uran residents Meenanath Patil and Vijay Jadhav, who contended that the developers had started construction on the plot in 2013 after obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Chanje gram panchayat, while being well aware that they could not have built on the land without Cidco's approval. In December 2013, the petitioners filed three complaints against the allegedly illegal construction before the Chanaje gram panchayat, stating that the construction obstructed access to their homes and a water well. These were followed by complaints to the Uran panchayat samiti and Raigad district collector. In 2014, Cidco inspected the site of the allegedly illegal construction and issued a notice to the developer for the removal of the unauthorised construction under sections of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. In January 2016, the planning authority also filed an FIR against the developers for the unauthorised construction. The petitioners' lawyer, Abhinandan Vagyani, told the court that Cidco also issued a similar notice to the developer in September 2024. 'By this time, an entire complex of five buildings had already been constructed illegally…' Vagyani said, adding that the notice was a mere formality. 'This is a classic case where the authorities have not just neglected their statutory obligations but have, by their conduct, actively permitted the perpetuation of illegal constructions…,' he told the court. Cidco's lawyer then drew the court's attention to an affidavit filed by its Controller of Unauthorized Constructions department, which stated that the planning authority had inspected the site in August 2024. 'Cidco officials found residents occupying illegally and unauthorisedly constructed buildings,' the affidavit said. A month later, the residents were issued notices under the MRTP Act, the lawyer said. The court was also informed that the regularisation application filed by the developers was rejected by Cidco on January 27 this year. The high court, however, said that Cidco had 'not only exhibited a deliberate inaction but has also taken superficial steps, further encouraging illegal constructions.' The judges said, 'By its conduct, Cidco has not only fostered unauthorised structures but has also jeopardised the interest of innocent flat purchasers who, despite investing their hard-earned money, have become victims of these illegal developments'. The court, however, added, 'These purchasers, who failed to exercise due diligence by conducting proper title searches and obtaining sanctioned plans, cannot be entirely absolved of their imprudence. Their recourse, if any, lies against the developer.' The court also ordered the authorities, including the Maharashtra government and Cidco, to take action against 'all concerned officers who have permitted the continuance of illegal construction since 2014 and take appropriate action against not only the officers of Cidco but also against the concerned developers…'. The high court also set aside an order of the civil judge, junior division, Uran, who had ordered a status quo in the case in December 2024.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Thane tunnel-elevated road: HC junks L&T pleas, OKs bid opening
Mumbai: Declining relief to construction giant Larsen & Toubro , Bombay high court vacation bench on Tuesday dismissed its petitions against the opening of financial bids for the Rs 14,000 crore Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road project , and gave the go-ahead to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ( MMRDA ) to open the bids. A division bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor discontinued the interim stay it had granted last week on opening of the financial bids on May 13, but on a request made by L&T counsel in both matters, directed MMRDA to preserve the price bids for two weeks from the date they are opened and the decision is communicated. L&T will now appeal to Supreme Court. The 5km tunnel and 9.8km elevated road together is touted to be the second longest road project in the country after the 22km Atal Setu, also executed by MMRDA. The elevated road, to be built along Vasai Creek, is proposed to be an extension to the Mumbai Coastal Road. What weighed with the HC was that L&T, as a bidder, accepted certain tender terms and participated in the bids. Also, it was a mega infrastructure project, and any delay would adversely impact its execution. However, no prejudice would be caused to L&T if its rights are kept open to challenge the final award and its rejection later. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The HC did find much merit in Singhvi's submission that the tender terms were contrary to the PWD and CVC guidelines. The HC observed the tender conditions to be prima facie "opaque and such that could give rise to the tendering authority acting in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner." But it noted that L&T accepted the terms and participated without challenging them as they should have. The company filed two petitions challenging the opening of financial bids without MMRDA first intimating the decision on the technical bids. The HC said the petitioner suppressed certain material facts, a part of the tender condition, as argued by MMRDA's senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. It was incumbent on the company to set out the clause and explain why it was not applicable, the HC said in its order, adding, "It is well settled that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court is supposed to be truthful, frank, and open and must necessarily disclose all the material facts without any reservation, even if they are against such a party. It is not open to a party who seeks equity to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' certain facts and to suppress and/or conceal other facts."
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
No stay on opening of financial bids in Thane-Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road project: Bombay HC, denies relief to L&T
Bombay HC MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court vacation bench on Tuesday granted no relief to construction major Larsen & Toubro, one of the bidders in the Thane-Bhayandar Tunnel and elevated road project. The division bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor did not stay the opening of the financial bids that were scheduled for May 13, originally. However, the HC stated that after opening the financial bids and communicating the decision to the winning bidder, the financial bids are to be preserved in a sealed cover for two weeks to enable L&T to appeal to the Supreme Court. The tunnel, 5 km, and the elevated road, 9.8 km, together make it the second-longest road project after the almost 22 km long Atal Setu and is being undertaken by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ( MMRDA ). The project cost is estimated at over Rs 14,000 crore. Earlier, as an urgent interim order, the HC initially stayed the opening of the financial bids—the final stage of the bidding process—for a day and then, during the hearing, asked the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), which is executing the two projects, not to open the bids until it passes orders. The reasoned judgment copy will be made available later during the day. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ative sua licença do antivírus agora Clique aqui Undo However, when L&T's senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas, in one of the two petitions—separate petitions were filed for the two bids for the tunnel and elevated road—sought to request the presence of the company's representatives at the opening of the financial bids, the HC was not inclined and orally said it was held in his petition that the bidder came to court after suppressing material. Last Thursday, the HC closed for orders a petition filed by construction major Larsen & Toubro (L&T) to challenge the opening of financial bids without its presence as a bidder for two projects, one a tunnel and the other an elevated road from Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayander. Earlier, L&T played a lead role in the construction of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (Atal Setu), also an MMRDA project. The High Court vacation bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor sought written submissions from both sides. On Wednesday, it requested MMRDA not to open the bids until Thursday when it concluded the hearing and extended the stay against the opening of the financial bid—which is the last stage of the tendering process. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi , logging in via video conferencing from Delhi and appearing for MMRDA, as did Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , said not just L&T, there were two other bidders in one of the projects and one more in the second project, who were found non-responsive when technical bids were opened. Under the terms of the tendering process, they will be intimated once the bidder is finalised after the opening of financial bids. There were around five bidders overall, the court was informed. Rohatgi argued that the petitioner suppressed bid conditions and clauses which clearly enable MMRDA not to disclose its decision on the technical bid round to the bidders during the process but entail intimation after the winning bid is selected. For L&T, which filed two separate petitions for the tunnel and elevated road projects, senior counsel AM Singhvi and SU Kamdar appeared on Thursday, arguing how the non-intimation after the opening of technical bids—the second stage of the bidding process—flouted even State guidelines and various fundamental rights, including equality, the right to trade, and the right to life, in tenders for public projects, entailing public funds. Rohatgi and Mehta cited the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed rail (bullet train) project judgment of the Supreme Court, termed the ' Montecarlo ' case, after the bidder whose technical bid was held non-responsive went to court and was unsuccessful before the apex court. In large public projects, the bid documents are made to ensure there is no litigation during the tendering process, as delay would not augur well, Mehta argued. L&T counsel argued that the bullet train is foreign-funded and the SC carved a distinction, but MMRDA cannot be allowed to turn the settled principles of transparency and fairness long held by the courts as the foundation of the tendering process for public projects on its head. MMRDA said the tender terms were the same in the bullet train project, hence L&T's petition ought to be dismissed. The SC in the Montecarlo matter held, 'Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disable the State or its instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in the exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions.' The Elevated Road Project is an extension to the Mumbai Coastal Road Project: envisages a 9.80 km bridge passing along the Vasai Creek. It is estimated at approximately ₹6000 crore, The tunnel is 5 km long from Gaimukh to Fountain Hotel Junction on Thane Ghodbunder Road; estimated at Rs 8000 crore with the largest diameter of 14.6 m. L&T invoked PWD guidelines casting obligations on communicating the list of qualified/disqualified bidders after the technical round, which the MMRDA argued was not mandatory as held earlier in a matter by the HC., MMRDA argued that the guidelines were not mandatory as held earlier in another matter by the HC
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Thane road, tunnel tender row: HC denies relief to L&T, okays bid opening
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday denied relief to construction giant Larsen & Toubro (L&T) in connection with the dispute over the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects, giving a go-ahead for the opening of tender bids. A vacation bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Arif Doctor said it was not continuing its interim stay passed last week restraining the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from opening the financial bid, which is the last stage of the tendering process. The financial bid was scheduled to be opened on May 13. L&T had filed two petitions in the high court earlier this month, challenging the non-intimation of the status of its bid by the MMRDA for the projects. The bench on Tuesday rejected the petitions but directed the MMRDA to keep the company's price bids in a sealed cover for one week after the tender is opened. "We are not continuing the earlier interim order of stay," the court said. The construction company, in its pleas, stated it was not intimated about the outcome of the technical bid process for the Rs 6,000 crore project, which includes a 9.8-km elevated road over Vasai Creek, touted as the second longest in the country after the Atal Setu. L&T submitted its technical and financial bids on December 30, 2024. The technical bids were opened on January 1, 2025, but the company claimed it received no communication thereafter. It said the MMRDA's non-communication violated the principles of fairness and transparency in the tendering process. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the MMRDA, had argued that as per the tender conditions, only responsive bidders would be intimated. Since L&T's bid was found to be non-responsive, the agency was under no obligation to communicate with the company. The MMRDA said it was open to unsuccessful bidders to challenge later after the lowest bidder is selected, and they would not be left remediless. Rohatgi and Mehta said the project was large and in the public interest and could "brook no further delay".
