Bombay High Court
Ramesh Swaminath Singh vs The Slum Rehabilitation Authority And 6 ... on 24 January, 2023
Author: M.M. Sathaye
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye
910-qpl35793-22.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
VASANT by VASANT
ANANDRAO
ANANDRAO IDHOL
IDHOL Date: 2023.01.25 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.35793 OF 2022
11:41:29 +0530
Ramesh S. Singh ...Petitioner
V/s.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Pradeep Thorat with Mr.Vinay Patel and Mr.Aniesh Jadhav i/b
Mr.Pushpraj S. Singh for the Petitioner.
Ms.P.H. Kantharia for SRA - Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for the State -
Respondent No.4.
Mr.A.A. Mirza i/b Mr.Adil L. Mirza for the Respondent No.7.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
M.M. SATHAYE , JJ.
DATE : 24TH JANUARY, 2023.
P.C. :-
1. The Petitioner has impugned the orders dated 13 th April, 2016, 30th August, 2019 and 26th July, 2022 passed by the Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvements, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is the legal heir of Swaminath Dhunnu Singh, who died on 6 th April, 2017, who was the owner in respect of part of the land bearing Survey 1/3 910-qpl35793-22.doc No.738/B/1A(part) admeasuring about 440 sq. mtrs. According to the Petitioner, before passing the said order dated 26th July, 2022 awarding compensation in favour of the Petitioner in the sum of Rs.14,26,794/-, the Petitioner was not issued any notice by the SRA.
According to the Petitioner, no such notice was issued to the father of the Petitioner during his life time.
3. Ms.Kantharia, learned counsel for SRA opposed this Writ Petition at this stage on the ground that it is not possible to contend by the Petitioner that no notice was served upon the father, the predecessor of the Petitioner. She seeks time to take instructions and to file affidavit in reply and to place on record the status of the notice served upon the parties, including the predecessor of the Petitioner in respect of the writ property.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 opposed this Writ Petition on the ground that though the predecessor of the Petitioner claims certain rights in the writ property, the name of the predecessor of the Petitioner was not entered into mutation record and thus no notice was given to the predecessor of the Petitioner. He submits that the notice was given to the persons whose names were reflected in the property card by the SRA.
5. The matter requires further hearing, since it is the case of the Petitioner that no hearing was given at any point of time to the 2/3 910-qpl35793-22.doc predecessor of the Petitioner or the Petitioner, after the demise of the predecessor of the Petitioner, the SRA to produce the relevant proof of service of notice before initiating the proceedings under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvements, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 effected upon the predecessor of the Petitioner. SRA to state in affidavit whether after the name of the Petitioner came on the property card, any notice is served upon the Petitioner or not.
6. Learned counsel for SRA seeks time to take instructions and to produce original files to show that the notice has been served upon the concerned persons i.e. the predecessor of the Petitioner or the Petitioner, as the case may be.
7. Place this matter on board on 6th February, 2023. Till next date, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e).
(M.M. SATHAYE , J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
3/3