Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Radhakrishna Co-Operative Housing ... vs State Of Maharashtra . on 3 January, 2017
Bench: Dipak Misra, Arun Mishra
SLP CC 24121/16
1
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC 24121/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/08/2016
in WP No. 1355/2014 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
RADHAKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Petitioner(s)
LTD. AND ANR.
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date : 03/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Goradia, Adv.
Ms. Surekha Ranan, Adv.
Ms. Niharika, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Sarma, Adv.
Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv.
for M/s. K. J. John & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
It is submitted by Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Signature Not Verified senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Tushar Goradia and Digitally signed by Mr. Pratap Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2017.01.05 16:50:50 IST Reason:
that the High Court has misconstrued the prayer made by the petitioner, inasmuch as the prayer of the petitioner No.1, Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Limited, was to SLP CC 24121/16 2 permit it to withdraw from acquisition and get the land developed by the land owner, the petitioner No.2 herein. Learned senior counsel would submit that the High Court in certain judgments regard being had to the facts and circumstances has permitted withdrawal from acquisition. It is contended that once the withdrawal is permitted, the land owner can develop the land for the benefits of the members of the Society as agreed to between the Society and the land owner.
At this juncture, we are obligated to say that the aforesaid submissions have not been canvassed before the High Court and, therefore, the High Court has not dealt with the same. However, keeping in view the submissions put forth and the benefit of the members of the Society being highlighted, we permit the petitioners to file an application for review before the High Court within four weeks hence. If the application for review is filed within the said period, the High Court shall dispose of the same on its own merits keeping in view the submissions recorded herein-above and other submissions to be put forth in the review petition without throwing it on the ground of limitation at the threshold. In case the review petition is not entertained by the High Court and, eventually, dismissed, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court in the special leave petition assailing the principal order (the impugned order) as well as the order passed in review.
With the aforesaid observation, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master