Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Lokhandwala Shelters India Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2009NMW/300/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a notice of motion, the petitioners were permitted to join third parties as respondents. The court vacated an ad-interim order restraining construction on specific land because buildings were already erected and occupied, subjecting future development to the final judgment of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim order restraining construction is vacated; petitioners permitted to join new applicants as respondents.

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.277 OF 2009

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1400 OF 2004

¶7

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay....Petitioner.

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

And

¶12

Panchsheet Co-op.Housing Scty.Ltd. ...Applicant

¶13

AND

¶14

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.300 OF 2009

¶15

IN

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.1400 OF 2004

¶17

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay....Petitioner.

¶18

vs.

¶19

1.State of Maharashtra & ors....Respondents.

¶20

And

¶21

Lokhandwala Shelters India Pvt.Ltd....Applicant

¶22

¶23

Mr.R.N.Kachare,for Petitioner.

¶24

Mr.F.Devitre, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.Anil Rao, for
Applicant in N.M. no.277/09.

¶25

Mr.D.D.Madan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.R.Dhond &
Mr.D.B.Deokar i/b. P.K.Shroff & Co., for applicant in
N.M.no.300/09.

¶26

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
 R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶27

DATED: 2^nd September,2009

¶28

P.C.:-

¶29

1.On a motion made by the learned Counsel

¶30

appearing for petitioner, the petitioner is permitted

¶31

to join the applicants in both the notices of motion

¶32

as respondents. Petitioner to carry out amendment
within a period of three weeks from today. Newly added
respondents waive service of notice.

¶33

2.So far as the question of vacation of the

¶34

order is concerned, it is common ground that so far as

¶35

C.S.no.1/122 and C.S.no.2/122 are concerned,

¶36

¶37

construction and development on this land has already
taken place, buildings are actually standing on the

¶38

land and they have also been occupied. In our
opinion, in this situation, it will not be appropriate

¶39

to continue the ad-interim order which is granted by

¶40

this Court and which is continued, and therefore, the
ad-interim order is vacated. However, any development

¶41

on the land in respect of the above referred city
survey numbers and any development which is to be made
hereinafter, shall be subject to the result of the
petition.

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Lokhandwala Shelters India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Lokhandwala Shelters India Pvt. Ltd.

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

Killick and Allied Companies Employees Union and Ors. Vs Killick Nixon Ltd. and Ors.

G.B.Ganachari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Transport and Dock Workers Union and Ors. Vs the Board of Trustees Bombay Port Trust

Shree Mahyawanshi Samaj, Bombay Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Panchsheel Co-Op.Housing Soceity Ltd.

V.M. Ramulu Vs Pawan Hans Helicorters

Sharad W.Nerkar Vs Mah.Small Scale Ind.Dev. Corpn.Ltd.