Bombay High Court
Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 22 November, 2021
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: G.S. Patel, Madhav J. Jamdar
1-OSWP-136-2017 WITH OSWP-565-2020 WITH IA-2370-2020.DOC
Priya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by WRIT PETITION NO.136 OF 2017
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2021.11.23
17:15:09 +0530
M/s Vimal Builders and anr ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2370 OF 2020
Merit Magnum Construction ...Petitioners
(Formerly known as Vimal Builders) and anr
Versus
That State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Dr Birendra Saraf, Senior Counsel, with Mr Mayur Khandeparkar,
Mr Hrushi Narvekar, Mr Samit Shukla and Ms Anjali Shah
i/by M/s DSK Legal, for the Petitioners.
Mr S B Pawar, i/by M/s S K Legal Associates LLP, for Respondent
No.4 in WP No.565 of 2020.
Mr Vijay D. Patil, for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.136 of
2017 and Writ Petition No.565 of 2020.
Mr J Reis, Senior Counsel a/w Ms Sheetal Metakari i/by Mr Sunil
Sonawane and Mr Shivkumar Tandale, for AE (Imp -II ) Estate.
Mr D D Madon, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr Shashikant Surana i/b
Mr Madhur Surana, for Respondent No.5.
Mr Jagdish G.Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent No.8/AGRC.
Page 1 of 3
22nd November 2021
1-OSWP-136-2017 WITH OSWP-565-2020 WITH IA-2370-2020.DOC
CORAM: G.S. Patel &
Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 22nd November 2021 PC:-
1. On 15th November 2021, we were told by the Petitioners that the MCGM had not complied with neither this Court's order of 7th April 2016 nor the Supreme Court order of 22nd July 2016.
2. In our order of 15th November 2021, we reproduced both these orders. We directed the MCGM to complete the process of scrutiny and verification of vacant land tenures and other occupancies. We directed this to be done before today.
3. Mr Reis, learned Senior Counsel for the MCGM, points out that to the Petitioners' knowledge this process of scrutiny and verification was completed as long ago as 11th January 2017. On the last occasion, the Advocate for the MCGM did not have the papers readily at hand and hence could not readily bring this to the Court's notice. Nonetheless, he submits, the Petitioners ought to have pointed this out. They failed to do so.
4. Dr Saraf for the Petitioners today accepts that the letter of 11th January 2017 from the MCGM was received by the Petitioners.
He says, however, that the question is not of completion of verification and scrutiny but of a demand by the MCGM for realisation of a capitalized value.
Page 2 of 322nd November 2021 1-OSWP-136-2017 WITH OSWP-565-2020 WITH IA-2370-2020.DOC
5. This is not what we were told on the previous occasion.
6. The Petition has never been amended to include any challenge to the 11th January 2017 letter.
7. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that as regards the process of scrutiny and verification, no further orders are necessary. The MCGM will set the relevant facts on record by way of a short affidavit to be filed on or before 29th November 2021.
8. Dr Saraf seeks leave to amend. At the very least, a draft amendment will be required. We cannot grant an amendment in the abstract.
9. List the matter on 29th November 2021.
(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Page 3 of 3
22nd November 2021