Bombay High Court
SALOMAN MATHEW TUSCANOversusVASAI-VIRAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The respondents must issue fresh notices and complete the action contemplated under Section 53 of the MRTP Act within ten weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Saloman Mathew Tuscano, filed a writ petition seeking a direction that the Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation (VVCMC) take the notice issued under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 to its logical end. The respondents had issued a notice in December 2013 concerning two survey parcels but failed to proceed with any further action as mandated by the Act. The Court observed that the respondents had indeed issued the notice but had not complied with the subsequent procedural steps. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to hear the affected parties and to issue fresh notices to the petitioner, completing the process within ten weeks of the order. With this direction, the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are obligated to take the notice issued under Section 53 of the MRTP Act to its logical end
- Whether fresh notice must be issued when the original notice remains unacted upon
Legislation cited
Subjects
- MRTP Act
- Section 53
- notice
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
- procedural compliance
- fresh notice
Judgment
Digitally
17-WP-11713-2022.doc
signed by
RUPALI
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.09.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
13:44:50
+0530
CIVIL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11713 OF 2022
Saloman Mathew Tuscano ...Petitioner
Versus
The Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Mohit P. Jadhav a/w Mr. Manish Shirke for the Petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil R. Patil for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – VVCMC.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. The limited relief which is sought in this petition is a
direction against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the notice issued
by them under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town
Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) be taken to its logical end.
2. Admittedly, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have issued
Wakodikar 1/3
17-WP-11713-2022.doc
notice under the provisions of Section 53 of the MRTP Act upon the
noticee in respect of property bearing Survey No. 70/11 and Survey
No. 70/12 of village Kofrad, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar. The
learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 does not
dispute that the notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act is issued by
them. The said notice is at ‘Exhibit - B’ to the present petition.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, inspite of
sending the notice, no further steps have been taken by the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as was contemplated under Section 53 of
the MRTP Act.
4. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hear the respondents who are likely
to be affected by the notice dated 20 th December, 2013 issued by the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Since the notices are issued in the year
2013, we direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue fresh notices to
the said petitioner and take the action to its logical end. The said
Wakodikar 2/3
17-WP-11713-2022.doc
exercise be undertaken within a period of ten weeks from the date of
producing the authenticated copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid observation, nothing remains for
further consideration in the petition. Petition is disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 3/3
Checking your session…