Dismissed

Ellora Construction Sole Proprietory Firm v. M.B. Kodnani Chief Engineer and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2005WP/1822/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for want of locus standi, ruling that a person holding only an Agreement of Development and Power of Attorney has no interest in the property to maintain the petition as per cited precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for want of locus standi; Rule discharged with no order as to costs.

Ellora Construction Sole Proprietory Firm Vs M.B. Kodnani… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE.

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 1993 .

Ellora Construction.

..Petitioner

V/s.

M.B. Kondani, Chief Engineer

¶7

.. Respondent.

¶8

Shri K.Y. Mandalik for the petitioner. Shri R. Ashokan for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri Vinay Sanpal, AGP for respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Shri P.B. Shaligram for respondent Nos. 8 & 9.

¶9

CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 20.9. 2005.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

. Shri Shaligram, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9 raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition, contending that the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain this petition. He further submitted that the Agreement of Development dated 13th May 1982 coupled with the Power of Attorney of the same date shall not create any interest in the property in favour of the petitioner as such for want of interest in the property petition at the instance of the petitioner is not tenable. He further submitted that the development agreement along with power of attorney has also been cancelled, with the result

¶14

the petitioner again has no right title and interest

¶15

in the property to proceed with the petition.

¶16

(2)

¶17

Shri Shaligram, learned Counsel placed

¶18

reliance	on		the	judg	ment	of th	e	Divi	sion	Bench of
this	Court	in	the	case	of	Vimla		Devi	G.	Maheshwari
vs.D.D.	Mohi	ndra	&	anr.	2	004(5)	Bo	m.	C.R	. 263 to
which	one		of	us	(Devad	har,J.)	is	a	part	y, wherein
this	Court	r	uled	that	the	pers	on	hol	ding	agreement
to	sale	does	not	h	ave	any	inte	rest	in	the property,
in that	view		of	the	matte	r, the		agree	ment	holder can
not	have	right	to	ma	intain	the	pe	tition.		Based on
this	view,		the	lear	ned	Counsel		submi	tted	that the

¶19

present petition is liable to be dismissed for want

¶20

of locus in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

3.		Learned	AGP for the State has submitted that
the	exemption		granted in favour of the	landholder
under	section	20	of the Urban Land Ceiling	Act(‘ULC
Act’	for	short)	was subject to certain	conditions.
The	breach	of	those conditions was to result	in
withdrawal	of	the	exemption. According to	the
learned	AGP,	in	view of breach of the	exemption
order	by	the	landholders, the State Government	has
withdrawn	o	n 29	.6.2005 exemption granted in	favour
of t	he l	andholder	under section 20 of the ULC	Act
during	the	pende	ncy of the petition. He,	thus,
submits	that	the	land has now been vested in	the
State	Govern	ment	under the provisions of the	said
ULC	Act	and,	therefore, interest of the owner	as

¶22

(3)

¶23

well	as	that	of the	petitioner,	if	any,	has	come	to
an	end.	Be	that	as it	may,	vali	dity	of	the
withdr	awal	of	exemption	is not	a	subject	mat	ter	of

¶24

this petition as such it cannot be gone into in this

¶25

petition.

¶26

entitled to maintain this petition and proceed with

¶27

the same.

¶28

Consideration:

¶29

Having heard rival parties, without taking into account withdrawal of exemption order and/or validity thereof and/or without considering validity of the act of termination of the power of attorney, but, taking into account the undisputed facts, the petitioner, who claims to have been put in possession of the property as developer under the agreement of development, cannot have locus-standi

¶30

to maintain this petition as held by this Court in

¶31

the case of Vimla Dev (cited supra).

¶32

6.		In the abov	e view, the petitio	n is dism	issed
for	want	of	locus-standi	in	favour	of	the
petitioner,		upholding	the		preliminary		objection

¶33

				(4)
raised	by	the	learn	ed	Counse	l	appear	ing	for
respondent	Nos.		8 &	9.	So far	as	merits	of	the
impugned	order	or	action	is	concerne	d,	we	express	no

¶34

opinion. Rule is discharged with no order as to

¶35

costs.

¶36

Needless to mention that with dismissal of

¶37

the petition, Civil Application would not survive.

¶38

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

Ellora Construction Sole Proprietory Firm v. M.B. Kodnani Chief Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ellora Construction Sole Proprietory Firm v. M.B. Kodnani Chief Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philips Glass India Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

The C.I.T.,Bombay City Xv,Bombay Vs Late Shri K.C.Shah through Legal Heir Shri Shripal K.Shah,B'Bay

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Maker Development Services Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. S.R. Nagpal and Sons (India) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Madankumar Babulal Sanghvi and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Navneet Prakashan Kendra. Vs C.I.T. Bombay City-Vii.