Disposed

Maharshi Balmiki Co-Operative Housing Society (Prop.) and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2010WP/530/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition directed the Municipal Corporation to decide pending representations regarding land acquisition under Rule 22(5) of D.C.R. 1991 within three months, ensuring an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide pending representations under Rule 22(5) of D.C.R. 1991 within three months, providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

Maharshi Balmiki Co-Operative Housing Society (Prop.) and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.530 OF 2010

¶3

Maharshi Balmiki Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop.)
& Anr..... Petitioners
Vs.
The Municipal Corporation
for Greater Mumbai & Ors..... Respondents

¶4

S/Shri P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate,
with V.H. Kamdi i/b M/s. VKLex & Associates
for the Petitioners.
Ms V.S. Gharpure for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
and 6.

¶5

S/Shri V.B. Naik i/b R.W. Pathai for
Respondent No.5.
Shri J.G. Reddy for Respondent No.7.

¶6

CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
 A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶7

DATED: APRIL 22, 2010

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.The learned counsel appearing for the
parties submit that respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6
can be directed to decide the representations
dated 21-11-2005 and 19-11-2009 made by the
petitioners in respect of the subject-property
i.e., land bearing Plot No.368 (Part), Ravli
Camp, Sion Matunga Estate Scheme No.6, GTB

¶10

¶11

Nagar, Sion, Mumbai-400 037 in accordance with
Rule 22(5) of D.C.R. 1991 within a reasonable
time. It is submitted that the representations
are pending since the last four years and no
decision has been taken in the matter which is
causing undue hardship and inconvenience to the
parties. It is further submitted that at the
time of considering the representations, the
respondent-Municipal Commissioner or his
delegate, who is competent to decide the
representations, should give an opportunity of
hearing to all concerned.

¶12

2.The learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 submits that she
has nothing to say in the matter. We,
therefore, dispose of this petition with
direction to respondent No.2 or his delegate
who is competent to decide the representations
filed by the petitioners for providing access
under Rule 22(5) of D.C.R. 1991, as
expeditiously as possible and in any event
within a period of three months from the date
of communication of this order, to be
communicated by the petitioners to respondent
No.2. It is made clear that at the time of
deciding the representations, the competent
authority would consider giving an opportunity

¶13

¶14

of hearing to all the parties to the petition
and particularly respondent No.5. The petition
accordingly stands disposed of.

¶15

3.All concerned to act on the
authenticated copy of this order.

¶16

A.P. BHANGALE, J.

Maharshi Balmiki Co-Operative Housing Society (Prop.) and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharshi Balmiki Co-Operative Housing Society (Prop.) and Anr. v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Vijendra Sharma Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 12 Ors.

Petroleum Products Dealers and Manufacturers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Powai Planet Co-Operative Housing Society Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Capt.Jayprakash v.Gadgil Vs Indian Airlines Ltd.and Anr.

Capt.Pankaj Mehta Vs Indian Airlines Ltd.and Anr.