Disposed

Pratap M. Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2006WP/1427/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a declaration of slum, the petitioner decided not to press the matter. The court directed the Additional Collector to determine which respondent (3 or 6) secured 70% support of occupiers as as on 1.1.95 to permit the formation of the proposed society.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not pressed; the Additional Collector was directed to determine the majority support among respondents 3 and 6 to permit the society's scheme.

Pratap M. Sanghvi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2002

¶5

 Pratap M.Sanghvi ..Petitioner
 Vs.

¶6

 State of Maharashtar & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr.Owen Menezes i/b Daksha Shah for the petitioner

¶8

 Mr.K.R.Belosay, A.G.P. for the respondent no.1

¶9

 Mr.M.M.Vashi, Intervenor (respondent no.6)

¶10

 Mr.S.G.Surana for respondent no.3

¶11

 Mr.K.N.Kandekar i/b V.Y.Sanglikar for respondent
 no.4

¶12

 CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006
 P.C.:

¶13

 1. The learned counsel for the proposed
 respondent nos.5 and 6 seeks leave to add
 themselves as a party to the present petition. All
 the parties have no objection to them being added
 as a party respondent nos.5 and 6.

¶14

 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner on
 instruction states that he does not desire to
 prosecute and press the present petition

¶15

¶16

 challenging the declaration of slum in respect of

¶17

 the property which is the subject matter of the
 present petition.

¶18

 3. Respondent no.3 as well as respondent no.6
 both are claiming to be the Chief Promoters of the
 proposed society having sufficient support of 70%
 of the hutment dwellers which are situated on the
 said property. Both the parties agree that the
 Additional Collector (Encroachment) being the
 competent authority be directed to determine the
 fact that whether the respondent no.3 or respondent
 No.6 has got support of 70% of the occupiers of the
 said property. While determining the same, the
 Additional Collector (Encroachment) will ascertain
 whether infact they are the occupiers in possession
 of property as on 1.1.95 and will take into account
 only those occupiers who establish that as on
 1.1.95 they were the occupiers in possession of the
 said property. The Additional Collector
 (Encroachment) thereafter will permit the proposed
 society which has been found to be having
 sufficient majority to propound the necessary
 scheme and the same will be processed in accordance

¶19

¶20

 with law. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶21

 Amendment to be carried out by today itself.

Pratap M. Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap M. Sanghvi v. 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

M/S. Apeego Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corpn. and 2 Ors.

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Vs M/S. Institute for Design of Electrical Measurement Instruments

Mohd. Ramzan Abdulla Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

smt roopa bahirwni and Ors. Vs smt hema g. anand and secretary anju co-op soc and Ors.

Air India Staff Colony Association and Anr. Vs Kamal Madanpotra and Ors.

M/S.Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd.and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn.of Greater Mumbai and Ors.