Dismissed

Vandana v. Kadam and 26 Ors. v Hari Om Developers and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2010APP/1071/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Origin side appeal challenging the Single Judge's denial of ad-interim relief restraining vacating of tenements in a completed slum rehabilitation scheme. The High Court held that since the scheme, allocations, and construction were complete with only a few appellants remaining, they were not entitled to the relief.

What did the court decide?

Relief restraining appellants from vacating existing tenements was denied; appeal against such denial dismissed.

Vandana v. Kadam and 26 Ors. Vs Hari Om Developers and 3… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

APPL+537

mss

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINALCIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL(L) NO. 537 OF 2010

¶7

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1922 OF 2010

¶9

¶10

SUIT NO. 1886 OF 2010

¶11

VANDANA V. KADAM & ORS. .. .. .. APPELLANTS

¶12

Vs.

¶13

M/s. HARI OM DEVELOPERS & ORS. .. .. RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr. Vinay Hegde for the appellants Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Mr. J. G. Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. R. J. Mane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶15

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ.

¶16

DATED: 4/10/2010

¶17

P.C.

¶18

The appellants are original plaintiffs. They have filed the

¶19

instant suit against 1^st respondent M/s. Hari Om Developers (“the

APPL+537

mss

developers” for short) and others challenging the alleged fraud and malpractices adopted by the developers and other defendants like the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Addl. Collector and the Deputy Collector in sanctioning the slum rehabilitation scheme and in seeking to implement it by alleged illegal modes.

¶24

The appellants took out the instant notice of motion inter alia for restraining the defendants from compelling the appellants from vacating the existing tenements which are in their occupation. Learned Single Judge has by the impugned order denied ad-interim relief to the appellants and hence this appeal.

¶25

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length. He submitted that the appellants are not members of any society. He submitted that no society was formed in respect of C.T.S. No. 201, 202 & 202/1 to 32 of village Mogra, Andheri. The developer has initiated the scheme on land bearing C.T.S. No. 80 and 81 which is at a considerable distance from their tenements situated on C.T.S. No. 201, 202 & 202/1 to 32. Counsel submitted that in any event the said lands are divided by existing 90 feet D. P. Road. Counsel submitted that no consent of the appellants was obtained in respect

APPL+537

mss

of the said scheme. There is no correspondence between the appellants and the respondents in respect of the said scheme. Counsel submitted that the amalgamation is obtained by practicing fraud.

¶30

It is not possible to disturb the impugned order which appears to us to be well reasoned. Admittedly scheme in respect of plot No. 201 is sanctioned vide order dated 4/8/2004. Name of each of the appellants appeared in Annexure II confirming each of the appellants entitlement to tenement admeasuring 225 sq. ft. The appellants case that they were unaware about the amalgamation order is not substantiated. We are informed that Rehabilitation building is constructed. Occupation certificate is granted. By drawing lots flats have been allotted to all including the appellants. Except the appellants, who are 27 in number all others have shifted to the new tenements. The appellants appear to have adopted a noncooperative approach. The scheme of 2005 is being challenged by filing a suit in 2010. Since the scheme is complete and large number of persons have taken benefit thereof, the appellants are not entitled to the relief prayed for by them.

APPL+537

mss

The appeal is dismissed.

¶35

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶36

(R. V. MORE, J.)

Vandana v. Kadam and 26 Ors. v Hari Om Developers and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana v. Kadam and 26 Ors. v Hari Om Developers and 3 Ors.

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

Kundlika Narsu Maske Vs the State of Maharahstra and Ors.

Sonkhar Industrial Salt Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs Shilajadevi @ Vahinisaheb Trimbak Rao Pratinidhi and Othrs

Bombay Small Scale Industries Association Vs the Employees State Insurance Corpn. and 3 Ors.

Asahel Teacher Memorial Trust Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Nd 4 Ors.

Gandhi Durai S/O. Thanga Raj Durai and 2 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. and Zulekha William Hutchinson and Ors.