Remanded

Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2010WP/1839/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Additional Collector's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for alternate accommodation under the T.P. Scheme 1980 due to incorrect factual findings and lack of diligence by the Corporation. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing with specific timelines. The Corporation was directed to keep one tenament vacant temporarily.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Collector dated 3rd April, 2010 is set aside. The Additional Collector is directed to conduct a fresh hearing by 18th October, 2010. Respondent No.5 is directed to keep one tenament v

Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya Vs the Mumbai Municipal… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2010

¶5

Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya .. Petitioner. v/s. The Mumbai Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. S. A. Sawant a/w. Mr. Samir M. Suryawanshi, for Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pakale a/w. Ms. T. H. Puranik for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. R. J. Mane, A.G.P.for Respondent No.3. Mr. Vaibhav Karnik for Respondent No.4.

¶7

CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATE : SEPTEMBER 27, 2010.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

It is the case of the Petitioner that he is entitled to permanent alternative accommodation in respect of the SRA Scheme implemented in Plot No. 251A and 251B, TPS-III Mahim Division, Mumbai. According to the Petitioner, he was in occupation and possession of tenament No. 12/53D, which originally stood in the name of his deceased wife. It is his case that he is eligible to an alternate permanent accommodation in the Rehabilitation Scheme. By an order dated 12th January, 2010, the

¶11

¶12

Additional Collector, Mumbai City was directed to comply with the order passed by this Court (Coram : R. M. Savant, J.) dated 16th March, 2009, and hear the Application of the Petitioner pertaining to his eligibility to get an alternate permanent accommodation under the Rehabilitation Scheme, within a period of eight weeks.

¶13

Pursuant to the said order dated 12th January, 2010, the Additional Collector, Mumbai City has passed an order dated 3rd April, 2010, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner to get an alternate permanent accommodation inter-alia on the ground that the wife of the Petitioner (now deceased) had already been given an alternative accommodation under the T. P. Scheme 1980. The Petitioner who has impugned the said order in this petition has contended that his deceased wife was never allotted any alternate accommodation, as alleged in the impugned order. This Petition was adjourned from time to time at the instance of the learned A.G.P. to take instructions. On 23rd September, 2010, the learned A.G.P. informed the Court that according to the records produced by her officer, the wife of the Petitioner was provided with a permanent alternate accommodation at Mahim. When this Court called upon the learned A.G.P. to show the possession letter issued

¶14

¶15

to the wife of the Petitioner or receipt obtained from her for having received possession of such accommodation, the learned A.G.P. informed the Court that the said papers are in possession of the Corporation and that it is only the Corporation who can produce the same. The matter was, therefore, adjourned on 27^th September, 2010 i.e. till today to enable the Corporation to produce the necessary papers/records.

¶16

Today, the learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation states that he has records in his possession which shows that at the time of publishing Annexure - II it was held that the wife of the Petitioner was not eligible to any permanent accommodation. If that be so, the order passed by the Additional Collector is incorrect. It appears that though, the Corporation was represented before the Additional Collector, the contention now raised by the Corporation was not advanced before him. It further appears that the officials at the Corporation appearing before the Additional Collector are not acting diligently and are neither reading the case papers carefully nor placing the correct facts in the matter thereby wasting the time of the Authorities as also this Court, because of which matters are repeatedly required to be remanded back for

¶17

¶18

fresh hearing and reconsideration.

¶19

In view thereof, by consent the, following order is passed :-

¶20

(i) The order of the Collector dated 3rd April, 2010, is set aside.

¶21

(ii) The Additional Collector, Mumbai City shall hear the parties on or before 18th October, 2010, and shall after considering the documents/evidence placed by

¶22

the parties before him pass a fresh order qua the eligibility of the Petitioner to get permanent alternate accommodation, on or before 22^nd October, 2010.

¶23

(iii) The parties shall appear before the Additional Collector on 1^st October, 2010 at 12.00 noon and obtain necessary directions.

¶24

(iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶25

(v) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

¶27

In the meantime, in order not to frustrate the right of the Petitioner, if any, Respondent No.5 is directed to keep one tenament vacant in the existing Scheme for a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, and to file an affidavit within one week from today setting out the particulars of the tenament which is kept vacant pursuant to this order. The Developer, who is represented by an Advocate in this matter, is also put to notice of this order.

¶28

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶29

[ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 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

S. Nikhil Vs Mardh Viks Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Haldiram Foods International Limited Vs ----------------------------

Essar Engineering Services Limited Vs ----------------------------

Cine Costume Make Up Artists and Hair Dressers Association and Anr. Vs Smt. Sarita Dashrath Salvi Andors.

M/S. Hotel Uma Palace, Vs the State of Maharashtra

Indiana Restaurant and Bar Vs the State of Maharashtra