Dismissed

Meera W/O Sadanand Kamat v. the State of Maharashtra and 16

Bombay HC24 Feb 2012NMW/535/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging construction on reserved land, the High Court discharged a Notice of Motion seeking interim injunction. Citing significant investment in rehabilitation and college construction despite delays, the Court dismissed the plea for stay, noting that college objectives remain valid.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on construction was denied; Notice of Motion was discharged/dismissed.

Meera W/O Sadanand Kamat Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

nmw- 535/11

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 535 OF 2011 IN

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 40 OF 2011

¶8

Meera w/o Sadanand Kamath. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. G.N.Salukhe for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmial Modle for Respondent - BMC. Mr. G.D.Uttangle i/b Uttangle and Co., for R-5 & 17.

¶10

Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin with S.Sinha, Bimal Nisat and Dhiren Shah i/b Vimla & Co., for R-12. Mr. S.G.Surana for R-14.

¶11

Mr. D.D.Madan, Senior Advocate i/b Mulla & Mulla for R-9. Mr. P.G.Lad,AGP for R-1, 6, 10 & 11.

¶12

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : February 24, 2012 .

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

In this notice of motion filed on 17^th November

¶15

2011, the petitioner in the petition, purporting to be a public interest litigation, had prayed for an interim injunction from carrying on further construction on the land bearing Final Plot

¶16

No. 179 admeasuring 29,777.30 sq. mtrs. situated at Kastur

¶17

Park, Borivali (W), Mumbai-92.

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

nmw- 535/11

¶20

When the PIL itself was heard for interim orders on 20^th December 2011, we had specifically declined to grant any interim stay against the construction going on on the land in question in view of the fact that the slum notification impugned in this petition was issued as far as back in the year 1978 and the LoI in favour of developer was issued in the year 2005. The construction which then commenced, has now reached the stage of construction of 5 rehabilitation buildings and on-going construction of 6^th rehabilitation building for total 624 rehabilitation flats for rehabilitating slum dwellers and project affected persons. The developer is also constructing college building with built up area of 45,000 sq. ft. We, therefore, declined to grant interim injunction against the construction.

¶21

Today, it is brought to our notice that out of 29,777.30 sq. mtrs. of land in question, as per the agreement between the Municipal Corporation and the developer, approximately 12,500 sq. mtrs. of land is to be given back to the Municipal Corporation, on 1,500 sq. mtrs. of land the developer is in the process of constructing college with built up

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

nmw- 535/11

¶24

area of 45,000 sq. ft. and on land admeasuring 7,000 sq.mtrs., the developer has already constructed 5 rehabilitation buildings and the construction of 6^th rehabilitation building is in progress, with total built up area of about 2,50,000 sq. ft. for slum dwellers and project affected persons. The developer has now the remaining land admeasuring about 9,000 sq.mtrs. for constructing about 2,50,000 sq.ft. of free sale area for which the developer has already entered into agreements with third parties.

¶25

If the petitioner had raised any objection earlier when the slum notification was issued in the year 1978 or when the LoI was issued in the year 2005, the developer would not have spent from its own pocket for construction of 2,50,000 sq.ft. of built up area for rehabilitating slum dwellers and project affected persons and 45,000 sq.ft. built up area for college. It is now too late in the day for the petitioner to pray for stay of construction of free sale area on the ground that the land was reserved for construction of college.

¶26

We are also informed that out of 12,500 sq.mtrs. being returned to the Municipal Corporation, another college is

¶27

-: 4 :-

¶28

nmw- 535/11

¶29

to be constructed by the Corporation at their own expenses. In view of the above, since two college buildings are to be constructed, it cannot be said that the object of the reservation on the land in question, i.e., construction of college, is defeated. In fact, but for the impugned grant and LoI of 2005, the hutments on the land would not have been removed and not a single college would have come up.

¶30

In view of the above and in view of the order dated 20^th December 2011 already passed in the main PIL, this notice of motion is dismissed.

¶31

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶32

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶33

-: 5 :-

¶34

nmw- 535/11

¶35

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

¶36

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 40 OF 2011

¶37

Meera w/o Sadanand Kamath. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶38

Mr. G.N.Salukhe for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmial Modle for Respondent - BMC. Mr. G.D.Uttangle i/b Uttangle and Co., for R-5 & 17.

¶39

Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin with S.Sinha, Bimal Nisat and Dhiren Shah i/b Vimla & Co., for R-12.

¶40

Mr. S.G.Surana for R-14.

¶41

Mr. D.D.Madan, Senior Advocate i/b Mulla & Mulla for R-9. Mr. P.G.Lad,AGP for R-1, 6, 10 & 11.

¶42

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : February 24, 2012 .

¶43

P. C. :

¶44

By order dated 20^th December 2011, we had already

¶45

given direction to the Municipal Corporation to file affidavit. In view of the direction given in para-5 of the said order, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner has filed affidavit dated 3^rd January 2012. Hence, further hearing of PIL on the basis of the said affidavit will take place on the next date of hearing. Stand over to 7^th March 2012.

¶46

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶47

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

Meera W/O Sadanand Kamat v. the State of Maharashtra and 16

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera W/O Sadanand Kamat v. the State of Maharashtra and 16

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

Bombay Environmetal Action Group Aand Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and S.H. Developers Pvt.Ltd. - Applicants

Bengal Mill Stores Private Ltd. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.

Bombay Environmetal Action Group Aand Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and M/S. v. M. Developers - Applicant

Dr Bhikaji Jagannath Wagdhare Vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and 7 Ors.

Mohammed Iliyas Mangroo Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tanuja Ajit Thatte Vs Ajit Ramchandra Thatte and Ors.