Remanded

Stanislaus Casimir D Souza and 9 Ors. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority (U.L.C.) Brihanmumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2007WP/1754/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a revision dismissal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act which occurred without a hearing, the High Court set aside the impugned order and ordered the revisional authority to decide the matter afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13th June, 2007 and the letter dated 17th July, 2007 are quashed. The revisional authority is directed to decide the revision application afresh after giving an opportunity of being he

Stanislaus Casimir D Souza and 9 Ors. Vs Additional… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.1754 OF 2007

¶4

 Stanislaus Casimir D’Souza & Ors .. Petitioners.
 Vs.

¶5

 Additional Collector and
 Competent Authority (U.L.C.)
 Brihanmumbai & Ors .. Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.P.K.Dhakepalkar with Mrs.Shamina Taly i/b
 S.Mahomedbhai & Co. for the petitioners.
 Mr.K.R.Belosey G.P. for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.
DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C.:

¶8

 . Heard Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned senior counsel
 for the petitioner and Mr.Belosey, learned Government
 Pleader for the State.

¶9

 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has

¶10

 impugned an order dated 13th June, 2007 and a letter
 dated 17th July, 2007 by which a revision filed by
 the petitioner under section 34 of the Urban Land
 (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be

¶11

 dismissed. Admittedly, the revision was disposed of
 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the
 petitioners. In the circumstances learned counsel
 for the petitioners prayed for remand. This
 prayer has not been opposed by the

¶12

 learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances
 I am satisfied that the following order

¶13

:2:

¶14

 shall meet the ends of justice:

¶15

 . The order dated 13th June, 2007 issued by the
 Under Secretary, Maharashtra Government rejecting the
 revision application is quashed and set aside. The
 revisional authority to consider and decide the
 revision application dated 3.12.2005 filed by the
 petitioners under section 34 afresh in accordance
 with law and after giving an opportunity of being
 heard to the petitioner. The revision be decided as
 expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a
 period of three months from the date of receipt of
 this order. All contentions are kept open.

¶16

 . While passing this order I shall not be
 understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of
 the case. Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned senior counsel on
 behalf of the petitioners made a statement that the
 petitioners will either surrender the flats to the
 Government or pay the amount as demanded by the State
 Government after disposal of the revision
 application. His statement is accepted. The writ
 petition is disposed of.

¶17

 (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Stanislaus Casimir D Souza and 9 Ors. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority (U.L.C.) Brihanmumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stanislaus Casimir D Souza and 9 Ors. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority (U.L.C.) Brihanmumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shrilal Hansraj Sharma and Ors. Vs Mrs Sakinabai Sirajuddin Kanchwala

Shirlal Hansraj Sharma Vs SAKINAB1. Mrs.S.M.Kanchwala (Dead) 2. Abdul S. Kanchawala (Desd by Lrs) Yasmin Onali Surati and Ors.

Sakinabi Sirajudddin Kanchawala and Anr. Vs Shrilal Hansraj Sharma and Ors.

Ashok Dada Naikwdi and Anr. Vs Murlidhar Zura Darade

Vasantrao Sitaram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Udey Pyrocables Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Hutoxi F. Fatakia and Anr.