Applicants moved for reconstruction of structures removed during river widening. Court directed authorities to decide expeditiously on alternative sites or compensation. No further order passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NOS. 405 AND 406 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2005
| Kirit Somaiya | ....Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| State of Maharashtra and Ors. And |
... Respondents. |
| Fakhruddin Hyat Mohammed Khan Kitabullah Moazzam Ali Khan |
...Applicant (NM 405/2006) ...Applicant (NM 406/2006) |
Mr. A.C. Singh, instructed by Mr. Devendra Sharma for the applicants in support.
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.R. Mehta, instructed by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for the petitioner to show cause.
Mr. K.R. Belosey, Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 10 to show cause.
Mr. K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. P.A. Purandare, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to show cause.
Mr. B.A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General, with Ms. S.V. Bharucha, for the Union of India to show cause.
Mr. Sarang Aradhye, instructed by Mr. R.V.Govilkar, for respondent No.8 to show cause.
Mrs. Kiran Bhagalia for MMRDA.
-2-
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, Ag. C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 17, 2007 .
P.C.
Heard Mr. Anil Singh in support of these Motions which are taken out by the applicants who claim to have had their structures on the banks of Mithi river and which have been since removed in the process of widening of the river. The Motions pray that the structures be directed to be reconstructed. Alternatively it is prayed that some alternative site be given. Mr. Singh has pointed out that letters have been received by the applicants from Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (“MMRDA”) stating therein that part of the structure was required for the river widening purpose and if the other part was not required, the applicants may be permitted to retain it. The letter, however, states that the applicants were requested to attend the office of MMRDA for negotiations on 9th January, 2007. Mrs. Bhagalia, learned counsel appearing for MMRDA, states that on the applicants satisfying necessary requirements either they may be provided alternative sites or they may be given compensation as per rehabilitation policy of MMRDA. We hope that the authorities will take the decision expeditiously. No further order is required to be passed in these Motions. These Motions are accordingly disposed of.
-3-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
Kirit Somaiya
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Fakhruddin Hyat Mohammed Khan
Kitabullah Moazzam Ali Khan
H.L. Gokhale
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
