The court rejected a writ petition challenging a resolution to transfer state corporation lands to the MHADA. The court held the petitioner had no vested right to demand land conveyance to the society and denied leave to withdraw the petition post-argument.
none; petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-3611-11.sxw
1
dgm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3611 OF 2011
Bhaskar Maruti Bhalerao .... Petitioner vs Maharashtra State Housing Corporation Ltd. and ors. .... Respondents
Mr. Bhaskar Maruti Bhalerao, petitioner in person. Ms. Sanjay Kshirsaar with Ms. Kavita Pawar for respondent no.1. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for respondent no.4.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE : July 21, 2011
P.C.:
The Petitioner, who claims to be a member of Netaji Cooperative Housing Society, has sought to challenge a resolution passed by the First Respondent on 19 November 2008 proposing to transfer the lands of the First Respondent at Wanworie, Pune to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. The Petitioner also seeks a direction that a conveyance of the land be executed in favour of the society. The society has not come before the Court seeking any such direction. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained at the behest of the Petitioner. The First Respondent is an
wp-3611-11.sxw
undertaking owned entirely by the State of Maharashtra. It appears that the First Respondent had acquired land admeasuring 11 acres and 20 gunthas at Wanworie which was utilised inter alia for the construction of 342 Lower Income Group tenements and 240 Middle Income Group tenements. It appears that there is a proposal for the transfer of the lands which vests in the Respondent to MHADA and the Housing Department by its letter dated 14 October 2010 has communicated the approval of the State Government. The Petitioner has no vested right to demand that the land should be conveyed to the society. This petition cannot be entertained at the behest of the Petitioner. After the petition has been argued, the Petitioner who appears in person seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Since we have heard the petition and find for the aforesaid reasons that there is no merit in the petition, we do not consider it appropriate and proper to grant the request after the petition has been argued.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a resolution to transfer corporation lands to the HUDCO authority can be entertained.
Whether the petitioner has a right to demand conveyance of land to a housing society.
Whether leave should be granted to withdraw the petition after hearing.
Bhaskar Maruti Bhalerao
Maharashtra State Housing Corporation Ltd.
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
ANOOV V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
