Dismissed

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

Bombay HC9 Sept 2008WP/2548/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a vacation notice issued to non-tenants/non-occupiers regarding a building collapse. The court ruled the challenge was meaningless as the petitioner's rights remained protected and proceeded to allow rehabilitation and transit accommodation upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner to apply for transit accommodation if she complies with the notice.

Kasabai Datta Shinde Vs the State of Mahrashtra and 2 Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2548 OF 2007

¶5

 Kasabai Datta Shinde .. Petitioner
 Vs.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra
 & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.A.G.Damle for the petitioner

¶8

 Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3

¶9

 Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for respondent nos.4 to 10

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 K.K.TATED, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard.

¶14

 2. The petitioner has challenged the Vacation
 Notice dated 26.08.2005 issued by the respondent,
 Mumbai Board Repairs and Reconstruction Board under
 section 90(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area
 Development Authority Act, 1976.

¶15

¶16

 3. It is not in dispute that part of the

¶17

 building known as Pavawala Building has collapsed
 and that it has to be redeveloped. The grievance
 of the petitioner appears to be in respect of the
 other occupants in her tenements. In so far as
 respondent nos.4 to 10 are concerned, the stand
 taken by the respondent Board is that they were
 accommodated in transit accommodation subject to
 giving an undertaking to this Honourable Court that
 they would not claim any right of rehabilitation in
 the premises after repairs or reconstruction
 subject to any Order that may be obtained against
 the petitioner herein or any agreement between
 them. Thus, it is ipso facto clear that the
 respondent nos.4 to 10 were granted temporary
 alternate accommodation by the Board in the
 peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in
 view of the order passed by this court in the said
 writ petition taking into consideration that if the
 building is to be reconstructed, it is the case of
 the respondent, that the petitioner only be
 rehabilitated in the reconstructed building.

¶18

¶19

 4. We make it clear that in case the

¶20

 petitioner complies with the notice and applies for
 transit accommodation, the respondents would allot
 transit accommodation to the petitioner and would
 also rehabilitate her in case the building is
 reconstructed.

¶21

 5. We find that the challenge of the

¶22

 petitioner to the Vacation Notice under section
 90(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area

¶23

 Development Authority Act, 1976 have been issued to
 respondent nos.4 to 10 who were neither tenants nor
 the occupiers of the said premises and it ought to
 have been issued only in her name, has no meaning

¶24

 as the petitioners rights are well protected.

¶25

 6. With these observation, petition is

¶26

 dismissed.

¶27

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶28

 ( K.K. TATED, J )

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasabai Datta Shinde v. the State of Mahrashtra 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

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

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