Plain reading of the above provisions of law discloses that in cases of any development within the territorial limits of the planning authority without the prior permission under the said Act or after revocation of such permission granted under the said Act, if carried out, then it could be ordered to be removed as well as direction can be issued for restoring the land to the condition which existed prior to the concerned development. The authority can also direct to restore such status quo ante within specified period. However, the specified period shall not be less than one month. Such a direction can be issued to the owner of the concerned development. The term "owner" would obviously disclose the person in whom the ownership of the property or the structure vests. The Section 2(18) of the said Act, however, widens the scope of the said expression "owner" by defining it to mean to include any person for the time being receiving or entitled to receive, whether on his own account or as agent, trustee, guardian, manager or receiver for another person or for any religious or charitable purpose, the rents or profits of the property in connection with which it is used. In other words, it is not only the person in whom the title of the property stands, but even his agent or person acting on behalf of the owner for the purpose of receipt of rent or profits from such property would be the owner for the purpose of the said expression under Section 53 of the said Act. Undoubtedly, in the case of co-operative societies, either the Chairman as well as the other members of the managing committee thereof would be the owners of the property of the society for the purpose of the said section.
{Para 7}.
Citation: 2005(2) Bom CR 747.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment