In a writ petition, the petitioner sought allotment of stalls in a reconstructed MHADA building. The Court held the petitioner guilty of latches for not raising the grievance in 1994 when the allocation list was prepared and finalized, dismissing the petition and discharging the rule.
Petition failed and dismissed; rule discharged; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 649 OF 2000
Shivram N. Shetty...Petitioner
v/s
MHADA & Ors. ...Respondent
Mr.RameshRamamurthywithMr.Saikumar
Ramamurthy for the Petitioner.
Mr.Milind More, AGP for the State.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ
DATED: 14th September, 2009
P.C.:
1.By this petition the Petitioner seeks
a direction to the Maharashtra Housing and
Area Development Board for allotment of two
stalls in the newly constructed building.
2
According to the Petitioner in the old
building which has been reconstructed, the
Petitionerwashavingresidential
accommodation. He was also having a
Restaurant. He was having a Pan-bidi shop and
watch-repairing stall. The case of the
Petitioner is that he has been given
alternate accommodations for residential as
well as restaurant purpose. But he has not
been allotted any stall for his pan-bidi
stall and for his watch-repairing stall.
According to the Petitioner, he has submitted
all the documents to the authorities
including licence under the Shop &
Establishment Act to show that he was having
these stalls.
2.The Respondent-MHADA has filed an
affidavit and it has stated that in the year
1994 before granting NOC for reconstruction
3
of the building the list of the occupants who
are entitled to accommodation for various
purpose in the reconstructed building was
prepared and allotment of the accommodation
has been done in the building as per that
list.
3.The Respondent No.3 has also filed an
affidavit where he has supported the case of
the Respondent No.2 that the Executive
Engineer of the Respondent No.2 prepared a
list of the occupants with requisite details
regarding user, carpet area, built up area,
proportionatecommonareaandother
particulars. The same was certified on
2-7-1994. Copy of the list is also annexed to
the affidavit of the Respondent No.3. Perusal
of the list shows that the Petitioner is
shown to be entitled to an area for non-
residential purpose. His entitlement is shows
4
at serial No.4. He is also entitled to the
residential area. The entry is at serial No.
16.
4.In our opinion, if the Petitioner was
denied allotmentofanyalternative
accommodation for his stalls, cause of action
for the Petitioner arose in the year 1994
when the list was prepared. It is only on the
basis of this list that the reconstruction
was made. Obviously,therefore,the
accommodation in the new building is to be
found only for the persons who have been held
entitled to the accommodation as per the list
of 1994. For the first time the Petitioner
appears to have made a grievance in the year
1999 and filed this petition in the year
2000. In our opinion, therefore, the petition
is guilty of latches. Had the Petitioner made
his representation at the relevant time in
5
the year 1994 and had the Respondents found
that there is a substance in the grievance of
the Petitioner, the plan of the building
could have been revised to accomodate the
Petitioner. Now,havingallowedthe
Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 to construct the
building as per the list prepared in the year
1994, the Petitioner cannot claim additional
accommodation. Though the list prepared in
1994 is specifically referred to in the
affidavit filed by the Respondents Nos. 2 &
3, though the Petitioner has filed rejoinder,
he has no where stated that the certified
list prepared by the Respondent No.2 was not
known to the Petitioner in the year 1994.
5.Taking overall view of the matter,
therefore, in our opinion, no relief can be
granted to the Petitioner, because the
petitioner is guilty of latches, which are
6
unexplained. Petition, therefore, fails and
is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to
costs.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(R.G.KETKAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, having delayed filing the petition until 2000 after the 1994 list was finalized, is guilty of latches and entitled to relief?
Whether the petitioner can claim additional accommodation for stalls not allotted in the reconstructed building despite alleged ignorance of the 1994 list?
Whether the High Court should grant a direction for allotment of stalls in a newly constructed building where the original list dates prior to the petitioner's grievance?
Shivram N. Shetty
MHADA & Ors.
D.K.Deshmukh
R.G.Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court