Allowed

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Mrs. Fahmida and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2005CHSW/280/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants a chamber summons for joinder of new parties. The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to add two applicants, who occupy a disputed plot, as respondents in the main writ petition concerning plot eviction.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons allowed; applicants to be added as respondents in the writ petition.

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

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

¶3

 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.280 OF 2004
 IN

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2485 OF 1992

¶5

 Ali Ahmed M.Khan & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 The Municipal Corporation of
 Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

And

¶9

 Fahmida D/o.Ata Mohamed & Ors. .. Applicants.
 --

¶10

 Shri V.R.Tripathi for the applicants.

¶11

 Ms N.Z.Khapra for the petitioners.

¶12

 Shri Vinod Mahadik for the respondents.

¶13

--

¶14

 CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &
 V.M.KANADE, JJ.

¶15

 DATED : 23rd AUGUST, 2005.

¶16

 P.C.

¶17

 1. Heard.

¶18

 2. By the present chamber summons, the applicants

¶19

 are seeking direction to the original petitioners in
 the Writ Petition No.2485 of 1992 for joining these
 applicants as party respondents on the ground that

¶20

 - 2 -

¶21

 they are having their structures in the plot in
 question. In that regard, it is the contention of the
 applicants that in view of the policy of the
 Government revealed from the G.R. dated 30th August,
 1997, they are entitled for alternative accommodation
 in case of their eviction from the plot in question,
 on account of the said plot being allotted to the
 petitioners in the final allotment under the Town
 Planning Scheme.

¶22

 3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the
 parties and on perusal of the records, it is
 undisputed fact that the present writ petition has
 been filed seeking direction to the Corporation to
 remove the existing structures on the plot in question
 in view of the allotment thereof in favour of the
 petitioners under the Town Planning Scheme. Once it
 is revealed that apart from the respondents who are
 stated by the petitioners themselves have been in
 occupation of the suit plot, is also being occupied by
 the applicants, as revealed from the application in
 the chamber summons, and their presence before the
 Court for appropriate and final adjudication of an
 issue involved in the writ petition would be not only
 proper but necessary, and considering the same,
 therefore, the applicants are justified in seeking

¶23

 - 3 -

¶24

 direction which has been sought for in the chamber
 summons. Hence, the chamber summons is allowed in
 terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment to
 the cause title to be carried out within a period of
 one week from today and the applicants are to be
 arrayed as respondents in the cause title of the above
 writ petition.

¶25

 4. Shri Tripathi, the learned advocate, waives
 service for the newly added respondents.
 Affidavit-in-reply, if any, on behalf of the newly
 added respondents shall be filed on or before 2nd
 September, 2005. The matter to be listed for final

¶26

 hearing on 12th September, 2005.

¶27

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J)

¶28

 ( V.M.KANADE, J)

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Mrs. Fahmida and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Mrs. Fahmida and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Nagar Co-Op Hsg. Soc.and Anr. Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

M/S.Khodiyar Builders Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vidya Sharad Urankar Vs the Special Land Acquision Officer (Mhada) and Ors.

Shri v.R.Joshi Vs Maharashtra State Textile Corpn.Ltd. and Anr.

Jagannath Ganpat Purav Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Prasad Vijay Inamdar Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.