Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nav Rajnigandha Chs. Ltd. And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2019

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: B. R. Gavai, N. J. Jamadar

(215)-NMW-80-14.doc.


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                      NOTICE OF MOTION NO.80 OF 2014
                                    IN
                       WRIT PETITION NO.2044 OF 2006

The Maharashtra Housing & Area                              ..Applicant
Development Authority                                  (Org. Respdt. No.2)

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Nav Rajnigandha Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
And another                                                     ..Petitioners
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others                             ..Respondents

                                    AND
                        WRIT PETITION NO.2044 OF 2006

Nav Rajnigandha Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
And another                                                     ..Petitioners
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others                             ..Respondents

Mr. S. P. Thorat, Advocate for the Applicant/Org. Respondent
No.2 in NMW No.80 of 2014.
Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Rakesh Pathak, Advocate for
the Petitioners.
Mr. S. G. Surana, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

                                      CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
                                              N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATE : 3rd JANUARY, 2019 P.C. 1] Issue notice to Respondent No.5 in the Notice of Motion, returnable on 17th January 2019.

BGP.                                                                             1 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 01:35:28 :::
 (215)-NMW-80-14.doc.


2]                By      way         of   present   Notice    of      Motion,         the

Applicant/original Respondent No.2 has prayed this Court for direction to Respondent No.4 to vacate the transit accommodation and shift all the occupants from the transit accommodation in the newly constructed building constructed by Respondent No.4. 3] Perusal of the material on record would reveal that the Petition is filed by the original Petitioners for writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.4 to hand over possession of "tit bit plot". A statement was made before this Court that the said plot was allotted to Respondent No.4 for construction of transit accommodation till the slum rehabilitation project is completed. The said statement was made on 22nd September 2006. The Court had directed the Respondent No.2 - MHADA not to grant further extension of the licence without permission of this Court.

4] It is unfortunate that even after 2010, Respondent No.4 is still continuing with the possession of the tit bit plot, which he could not have continued without there being prior permission of the Court.

BGP.                                                                                2 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019                      ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 01:35:28 :::
 (215)-NMW-80-14.doc.


5]                As to whether the Petitioners are entitled to the said

piece of land, will have to be adjudicated in the main Petition. However, the plot which has been reserved for public purpose, cannot be permitted to be in possession of Respondent No.4, who has no semblance of right over the said plot of land. It is only on account of the magnitude shown on the part of Respondent No.2 (in the Writ Petition) that the said plot was allotted to Respondent No.4, so that the project affected persons can be housed and slum rehabilitation project is completed.

6] We find that the continued possession of Respondent No.4 of the said plot after 22nd September 2010, is wholly illegal. 7] In that view of the matter, by way of ad-interim order, we direct the Respondent No.4 to hand over vacant possession of the said "tit bit plot" to the present Applicant/Respondent No.2 (in the Writ Petition) within a period of two weeks from today. 8] We clarify that if Respondent No.4 fails to hand over possession to Respondent No.2 within the aforesaid period, we shall be constrained to direct authorities concerned to take forcible BGP. 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 01:35:28 ::: (215)-NMW-80-14.doc.

possession thereof from Respondent No.4.

9] We further direct that the authorities of the present Applicant/Respondent No.2 to ensure that the possession is taken within a period of two weeks. If we find that officers of the present Applicant are lethargic in taking over possession, we would be compelled to draw an adverse inference and would consider to take an action against such officers.

10] Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]                                [B. R. GAVAI, J.]




BGP.                                                                         4 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019               ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 01:35:28 :::