Partly allowed

Phirai S. Chauhan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2005WP/1614/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay, in a writ petition, observed that the petitioner claimed entitlement to alternate accommodation based on prior residency. The set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner not considering proof documents and directed the Municipal Corporation to scrutinize them. This order sets aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 24.2.2002, directing the Municipal Corpora

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Assistant Commissioner set aside; Petitioner directed to file comprehensive representation within two weeks; Respondent Corporation directed to scrutinize documents and pass reasoned

Phirai S. Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1614 OF 2005

¶5

Phirai Surajbali Chauhan.... .... .... .... Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. R. R. Arolkar for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, Asstt. Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Ms. Aruna Savla for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶12

DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2005.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner

¶15

had a hut admeasuring 13' x 11' at Anand Nagar Hutment Colony, Opp. Sahayog Nagar, Apna Ghar Road, Four Bungalow, Andheri

¶16

(West), Mumbai – 400 058. In the year 1985, the entire area of Apna Ghar Road was covered with several number of huts.

¶17

¶18

Behind the petitioner's hut there was a nallah. The entire land of that hutment was owned by respondent No.1, the State of Maharashtra. There was no footpath or any pucca road in the year 1985 when the petitioner and other hutment dwellers were having their huts. The petitioner was residing with his family and was also carrying on business of selling chana / kurmura in the said hut.

¶19

In 1986-87, a big housing complex known as `Lokhandwala Housing Complex' came into existence and they started constructing multi-storied buildings near the said hutment colony. The case of the petitioner is that his hut was demolished in the road widening project of the respondents. The further case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to alternate accommodation according to the policy of the respondents because he has been there since 1985.

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a receipt of Rs.1501/- , which the petitioner has paid to respondent No.1 on 25^th August, 1992. According to the

¶21

¶22

petitioner this receipt itself is a sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner was residing in that hut before 1^st January, 1995. The petitioner has also placed some other documents, namely, pitch holder card, ration card , copy of extract of election roll, etc., on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that these documents have not been considered by respondent No.2 in the order dated 24^th February, 2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, K/West Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Even careful perusal of the order does not indicate that these documents and other documents which have been filed in this petition, have been considered by respondent No.2, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct respondent No.2, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to consider the documents filed by the petitioner regarding his entitlement for allotment of alternate accommodation. Since the matter has been pending for quite some time, we deem it appropriate to direct the

¶23

¶24

petitioner to file a comprehensive representation along with all the documents with respondent No.2 within two weeks from today and respondent No.2 shall after affording hearing to the petitioner scrutinise all those documents and give a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six weeks after receipt of the representation and documents.

¶25

No further directions are necessary. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Phirai S. Chauhan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phirai S. Chauhan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sarita Shivaji Patil and Ors. Vs Sajjaka Bhimrao Patil

Bharatkumar Amrutlal Shah Vs Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mallesha Baswant Jitte Vs Vithal Sadashiv Bansode and Ors.

Dr. Vivek Dattatraya Purohit Vs Smt. Uma Vivek Purohit

Joyti Popat Shinde Vs Vitthal Murlidhar Sonawane and Ors.

Zafar Futehally Vs Bank of India and 7 Ors.