Disposed

Ashyana (Andheri Pachim) Sra Chs Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2009WP/776/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed by consent order where developers undertook to pay interim rent and hand over larger renovation flats to tenants requiring vacating of temporary tenements under SRA scheme due to special family circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Developers to pay Rs. 13,000/month interim rent and allot larger tenaments; tenants to vacate present tenements by 25th September 2009.

Ashyana (Andheri Pachim) Sra Chs Ltd. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mgj

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 776 of 2009

¶5

Ashyana (Andheri Pachim SRA)
Cooperative Housing Limited ..Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.G.Surana for petitioners.

¶9

Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1
to 3

¶10

Mr.G.D.Utangale with Mr.Suresh Patil i/b M/s
Utangale and Co. for respondent no.4
Mr.H.S.Anand i/b Ms.Sarita Pande for
respondent nos.5 to 7

¶11

Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.C.N.Gole for
respondent no.8

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1This writ petition is disposed of by

¶14

the following order which is passed by

¶15

consent of the parties except respondent nos.

¶16

1, 2 and 3 i.e. the State of Maharashtra and

¶17

the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶18

i) Respondent no.8/developers undertakes

¶19

to pay an amount of Rs. 13,000/- to

¶20

¶21

respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 per month (payable
th
on 26th of each month starting from 26

¶22

September, 2009) until the developers

¶23

develop/reconstruct the tenements under the

¶24

SRA scheme on plots bearing C.T.S.Nos.
65(part), 66 and 66/1 to 51 of village

¶25

Andheri at Andheri (West), Mumbai for Ashiana
CHS (proposed) and shift respondent nos.5, 6
and 7 to their permanent tenaments as set out
in clause(iii) hereunder. The undertaking is
accepted.

¶26

ii) Respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 agree and
undertake to this Court to hand over the
vacant possession of their present tenements
to respondent no.8/developers on or before
25th September, 2009 and that they shall not
apply for any extension on any ground
whatsoever. The undertaking is accepted.

¶27

iii) The developers have agreed to give
in all two permanent tenaments admeasuring
269 sq. ft. each in the rehabilitation

¶28

¶29

building to be constructed to each of the
Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (i.e.total 6
tenaments). Out of the above six permanent

¶30

rehab tenaments one tenament to each of the
respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 will be allotted
in the rehab building in which the developer
is entitled to sell the tenaments.

¶31

iv) In the event of amendment of clause
1 of DC Regulation 33(10), developers shall
share the proportional benefit with all the
old occupants including respondent nos.5, 6
and 7 by giving them the tenaments which are
larger than 269 sq. ft.

¶32

2It is made clear that the developers
have agreed to the passing of this order in

¶33

view of the special circumstances in this
matter i.e. taking into consideration the

¶34

number of members in the respondents� family.
It is clarified that the same will not be

¶35

treated as a precedent.

¶36

Ashyana (Andheri Pachim) Sra Chs Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashyana (Andheri Pachim) Sra Chs Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Kantaben Babubhai Sathwara and 4 Ors. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh Vs Air Works India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

M/S. Vikas Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Additional Commissioner/Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpn. and Anr. Vs Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs M.Thomas and Anr.

M/S. Kala Dattaram Waradkar Vs M/S. Vikas Tailoring Institute