Dismissed

Mysore Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2008NMW/536/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an interim notice of motion seeking restoration of land possession and payment of a sum. The court held that merits must be heard in the main petition and that granting interim relief would prejudice the final hearing, dismissing the motion.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion dismissed. Case listed for hearing in the substantive petition.

Mysore Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 536 OF 2007

¶4

IN

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2006

¶6

 M/s. Mysore Co-op. Housing

¶7

 Society Ltd., .. Petitioners.

¶8

vs.

¶9

 The State of Maharashtra

¶10

 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶11

 Mr. M.M. Vashi i/by A.M. Sarogi for Petitioners.

¶12

 Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP., for Respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶13

CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &

¶14

 K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶16

 P.C.

¶17

 . Heard.

¶18

 2. The petitioners have taken out this notice of
 motion for seeking an interim order for restoration of
 the possession of the land admeasuring 10,515.6 sq.
 mtrs., which, according to the petitioners, has been
 illegally taken over by the respondents in violation of
 the orders passed by this Court. In the alternative,

¶19

¶20

 it is prayed that the respondents be ordered and
 directed to pay a sum of rs. 4,79,27,502/- with
 interest from 5.6.2000.

¶21

 3. In the substantive petition identical reliefs
 are sought. In addition, the petitioners have also
 sought TDR in place of compensation. In reply to this,
 it is the contention of the respondents that the
 possession of the land in question is taken in terms of
 the agreement entered into between the parties.

¶22

 4. In our view, the parties will have to be heard
 on merits in the matter. Otherwise, grant of any of
 the reliefs sought in the notice of motion would amount
 to granting final relief sought in the petition. In so
 far as the interest of the petitioners are concerned,
 the same stands well protected as in the substantive
 petition all that the petitioners have claimed is
 compensation either in terms of the amount quantified
 in the prayer clause or by way of T.D.R., and,
 therefore, we do not find that this Court can grant the
 reliefs sought for in the motion taken out by the
 petitioners. We, therefore dismiss the notice of
 motion.

¶23

 5. The petition to be listed for hearing in due

¶24

 course.

¶25

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶26

¶27

(K.K. Tated J.)

Mysore Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mysore Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

R.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs the Children'S Aid Society and Ors.

Mrs. Generosa a. Annes Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Others

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Charkop Shri Ganesh Smruti Chsl

Kasabai Datta Shinde Vs the State of Mahrashtra and 2 Ors.

Gaurang Jayendra Dholakia Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Govt. Pl and 4 Ors.

Akhtar Hussain Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbi and Anr.