Disposed

Rambachan P. Gaud v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jul 2010WP/1436/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an HPA order allowing sharing of a rehabilitation tenement with Respondent No.6. High Court directed the Authority not to hand over possession of the specific tenement to enable the Small Causes Court to decide the rival claims via pending interim injunction application, clarifying no stay on the scheme itself.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not to hand over possession of rehabilitation tenement No.B-705 until the Small Causes Court decides the pending interim application.

Rambachan P. Gaud Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

１

¶2

wp-1436-10.sxw

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1436 OF 2010

¶5

Rambachan P. Gaud Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Mr. J.A. Udaipuri with Mr. V.S. Bharge for the petitioner. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader with Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for State.

¶10

Mr. V.R. Gaikwad and Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for respondent No.5. Ms. Geeta Joglekar for respondent No.5-MCGM. Mr. R.U. Singh for respondent No.6.

¶11

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶12

DATED : 20TH JULY, 2010

¶13

P.C.

¶14

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th June, 2010 (Exhibit `H') passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority by which the High Power Committee has held that both, the petitioner and respondent No.6 herein (respondent No.1 before the High Power Committee) are jointly eligible to occupy the rehabilitation tenement which is constructed under the scheme approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

¶15

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 was merely a gratuitous licensee and has no right to occupy or share the hut in question and, therefore, the respondent has no right to allot severally or jointly a rehabilitation tenement in question.

¶16

２

¶17

wp-1436-10.sxw

¶18

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.6 opposes the writ petition and submits that respondent No.6 is entitled to get the rehabilitation tenement. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner has filed a suit before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai but no interim injunction is granted in the said suit. Reliance is placed on the order dated 5th May, 2010 of the Small Causes Court in the interim application.

¶19

Having perused the order dated 5th May, 2010 of the Small Causes Court, we find that the ad-interim relief was declined by the Small Causes Court on the ground that the matter was earlier pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai and the writ was returned to the City Civil Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but the ad-interim injunction granted by the City Civil Court was ordered to be continued for 35 days. The Small Causes Court noticed that 35 days period has lapsed and, therefore, the Small Causes Court was moved for ad-interim injunction and, therefore, the court did not see any urgency to grant any ex-parte ad-interim relief. The Small Causes Court has, therefore, issued notice to the other side as well as to the proposed defendant.

¶20

In view of the above, it appears that interest of both the parties would be served if the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority that in order to enable the parties to adjudicate their rival claims before the Small Causes Court, at least at the interlocutory stage, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall not hand over possession of the rehabilitation tenement No.B-705 in rehabilitation building Jai Bajrang Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall abide by such orders as may be passed by the Small Causes Court in the interim injunction application which is pending before the Small Causes Court.

¶21

３ wp-1436-10.sxw

¶22

The interim injunction application shall be heard and decided within two months from today. This direction is given upon the assurance given from the learned advocate of the petitioner and the respondents that they shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of injunction application.

¶23

It is clarified that we have not granted any stay for implementation of the rehabilitation scheme already sanctioned by the authority.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Rambachan P. Gaud v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambachan P. Gaud v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 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

Govind Ganu Mahadeshwar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Shrikrishna Govind Mahadeshwar and Ors. Vs Shantaram Shiva Pardhye and Ors.

Prakash Daryaji Sonekar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greaster Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bapu Narayan Romane Vs the State of Maharashtgra and 4 Ors.

Mahesh Jaykumar Upadhye Vs President, People Education Society and Others

Phulavati Tulsiram Indalkar and Ors. Vs Ganpat Rau Indalkar and Ors.

Sanjay Ratadiya and Anr. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and 2 Ors.