Dismissed

Chandanwadi Shikshan Prasarak Saamiti v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane

Bombay HC16 Jun 2009WP/3137/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an educational trust, challenged a Municipal Corporation resolution allotting part of a plot to others for a school. Court dismissed the petition as corporation would run the school and offered no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the rule was discharged, leaving the impugned resolution intact.

Chandanwadi Shikshan Prasarak Saamiti Vs the Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

jpc/-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3137 OF 2008

¶5

Chandanwadi Shikshan Parasarak Samiti, Thane

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of the City of Thanbe and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Shri R.S. Datar, for the petitioner Shri R. S. Apte for the Respondent No. 1 Shri S. M. Oak for Respondent No. 4

¶11

CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 16th June, 2009

¶12

ORAL ORDER ( Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶15

By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶16

This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the resolution passed by the Respondent- Municipal Corporation on 1^st December, 2004 that the Plot No. 366 be allotted to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under SRA scheme for re-development.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered turst and it is running a primary school since last 30 years and the building of the school was constructed on the plot bearing Final No. 366. It is submitted by him that the Respondent

¶18

¶19

Corporation, earlier, by resolution dated 20^th August, 1998 had allotted the said portion of Plot No. 366 to the petitioner and the petitioner intended to construct an additional school building on the said plot to meet the requirements of the school. It is further submitted that, however, the respondent Corporation changed its earlier decision and passed resolution on 1^st December, 2004 to allot a portion of the Plot No. 366 to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this Resolution, has filed this petition.

¶20

The respondent- Corporation has filed affidavit in reply of its Officer. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation has submitted that the said plot is admeasuring 8839.29 sq. mtrs. Out of which, the petitioner is being allotted 4557.29 sq. mtrs area and the portion of the plot was utilised by the petitioner for constructing the school building. Remaining 4502 sq. mtrs area is made available for the rehabilitation of encroachers under the Slum Development Scheme and the said portion of the plot, by the impugned resolution, is allotted to the Respondents 3 and 4.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that construction of the tenements for the rehabilitation of slum dwellers is in process and on the same plot they are constructing a School building for Primary school as per reservation and the said building will be handed over to the respondent-Corporation after its completion.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that if the corporation is going to run the said primary school on the said plot on its own, then the petitioner has no claim and right and should not have any grievance. However, in case, the corporation decides to give the said primary school to any private institution, then the respondent

¶23

¶24

Corporation will advertise accordingly and invite application from such institutions who are willing to run and conduct Primary school and in that event, the petitioner can also apply to the respondent corporation for the same.

¶25

In view of the above submission, as the Corporation has allotted the said Plot to Respondents 3 and 4 for construction of the school building and for implementation of the SRA scheme and the corporation is going to take over the school building to run and conduct the primary school as per the reservation, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter and the impugned resolution.

¶26

In the result the petition is dismissed. 11. Rule is discharged.

¶27

( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.)

Chandanwadi Shikshan Prasarak Saamiti v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandanwadi Shikshan Prasarak Saamiti v. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane

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

Babulal a Upadhyay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasant Deu Kambale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kansing Nandaji Kharavad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ibrahimsaheb Mohd. Hussein Alloli Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Haribhau Z Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arvind Kulkarni Vs Balkrishna a. Shetty and Ors.