Dismissed

Devdatta Jamnadas Patel v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Bombay HC11 Feb 2009WP/2137/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.2137 of 2008, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to an order declaring land as a slum area. The Court held that since the order explicitly excluded ownership disputes and rights from its scope, no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of without interference in the impugned order.

Devdatta Jamnadas Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2137 OF 2008

¶4

 Devdatta J. Patel ....Petitioner
 V/s.
 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶5

 Mr.Mohan Rane with Ms.Manisha Virkar i/b M/s.Vigil
 Juris for the Petitioner.

¶6

 Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
P.C. :

¶8

 1. The impugned order warrants no interference

¶9

 as it merely declares the area as a slum area. The

¶10

 Petitioner’s main contention was that he should have
 the first right to develop the said land as a slum
 land as he claims to be the owner of the said
 property.

¶11

 2. Firstly, the impugned order itself clarifies
 in paragraph 28 that so far as any disputed issues of
 right, title and interest of the Petitioner or of any
 other parties in respect of the said property are
 concerned, they are beyond the scope of the appeal and
 the only question in the said proceedings is the
 validity, legality and propriety of the declaration of
 the said property under Section 4(A) of the Slum

¶12

 : 2 :

¶13

 Rehabilitation Act. It is therefore, clear that all
 the rights, if any, of the Petitioner in respect of
 the said property are kept open. The same are neither
 decided nor even reflected upon in the impugned order.
 Needless to clarify that the Petitioner is entitled to
 agitate all his rights in respect of the said property
 including that he should have the first right to
 develop the said land.

¶14

 3. The apprehension that this order may confer
 upon any third party any rights is misconceived. As
 stated above the order is limited only to the issue of
 declaring the area as a slum area.

¶15

 4. With the above clarifications, the Writ
 Petition is disposed of.

Devdatta Jamnadas Patel v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devdatta Jamnadas Patel v. State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

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

Dalal Brothers Freight Forwardrs Private Limited Vs the Transport and Dock Workers Union and 2 Others

Nihalsingh Ramkhilawan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay Metal and Steel Syndicate Vs Tahasildar, Government /Labour Dues Recovery and Ors.

The Mihishad B Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Deputy Registrar Co-Op Housing Society and 5 Ors.

Hitesh P. Shah of M/S. Sea Bird Restaurant and Bar Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Indian Education Society and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others