Disposed

1. Shri Aslam Shaikh and Ors. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2012LPA/152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No.152 of 2012 based on a consensual arrangement where appellants may occupy hutments until August 31, 2012, subject to undertaking to vacate, with interim compensation payable by the developer.

What did the court decide?

Appellants permitted to occupy hutments till 31 August 2012; undertaking to vacate; interim compensation of Rs.6000/month by respondent No.3 until appellate decision; appeal disposed based on arrangem

1. Shri Aslam Shaikh and Ors. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

lpa-152-12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.152 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.14531 OF 2012

¶4

Shri Aslam Shaikh and others. ... Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Vikram V. Pai with Ms. Vina Y. Bhate i/by M/s. Mali & Divekar for the appellants.

¶6

Mr.P.G. Sawant, `B' Panel Counsel for respondent No.1-State.

¶7

Mr. G.D. Utangale with Mr. B.V. Phadnis i/by M/s. G.D.Utangale & Co. for SRA.

¶8

Mr. V.B. Naik with Ms.Tanmayee Salekar i/by M/s. Shah & Sanghavi for respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J.. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. Wednesday , July 25, 2012

¶10

P .C.

¶11

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4 July 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition (Stamp) No.14531 of 2012 filed by the present appellants for challenging the judgment and order dated 15 March 2012 of the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Removal) and Competent Authority, Dharavi Division, Mumbai City as also the appellate order dated 11 May 2012 passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai.

1 of 3

SRK

lpa-152-12.sxw

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners as well as the learned counsel for SRA and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 Developer, we record the following arrangement arrived at amongst the parties:-

¶16

(a) The appellants are permitted to occupy the hutments in their occupation till 31 August 2012.

¶17

(b) The appellants shall give undertakings to this Court to vacate the hutments in their occupation on or before 31 August 2012. The undertaking shalll be filed within one week from today with a copy thereof to be given to the learned advocate for respondent No.3.

¶18

(c) The appeals preferred by the appellants before the SRA for deciding their eligibility for permanent alternate accommodation will be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority of the SRA on the basis of the material on record and in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 4 July 2012 in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.14531 of 2012.

2 of 3

SRK

lpa-152-12.sxw

(d) Till the appeals are decided by the Appellate Authority of SRA, respondent No.3 developer shall pay the appellants compensation for the period from 1 September 2012 till the Appellate Authority of SRA decides the appeals of the present appellants, at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month, with liberty to the appellants to request respondent No.3 to give them compensation at a higher rate.

¶23

(e) After the appeals are decided by the Appellate Authority of SRA, the question of paying the compensation in lieu of transit accommodation will be determined on the basis of the decision of the Appellate Authority of SRA.

¶24

The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above consensual arrangement.

CHIEF JUSTICE

N.M. JAMDAR, J .

3 of 3

SRK

1. Shri Aslam Shaikh and Ors. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Shri Aslam Shaikh and Ors. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagender Parakh Vs Securities and Exchange Board of INDIA15

Baburao Mahadev Yadav Vs Assistant Manager ( Bank of Maharashtra

Baburao Mahadev Yadav Vs Assistant Manager ( Bank of Maharashtra

Chainroop Dugar, Vs Smt. Jatan Gulab Daga and 4 Ors.

R.B. Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Nile Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Afroz Hasan Fatta

Matoshree Shaikshanik Pratishthan and Ors. Vs All India Council for Technical Education, through Secretary and Ors.