Dismissed

Ramesh Chaturdas Sheth v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2012RPW/29/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed. The Court held that an increase in tenement area via a subsequent Government Notification does not apply to schemes already sanctioned and constructed prior to the notification. Petitioner was directed to pursue separate remedies for delay.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with direction to pursue separate remedies for delay.

Ramesh Chaturdas Sheth Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

rpw-29/12

srp

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

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO. 29 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITOIN NO. 3 OF 2010

¶6

Ramesh Chaturdas Sheth. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. S.L. Prabhu for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Thorat for R-1 & 2.

¶8

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 21, 2012 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

. This petition for review of the order dated 18^th June

¶11

2010 is not required to be entertained because the petitioner’s claim for allotment of tenement admeasuring 300 sq.ft. in stead of tenement admeasuring 225 sq.ft. offered by the respondent and accepted by the petitioner without prejudice to his rights, cannot be accepted. The respondent has constructed tenements as per the scheme sanctioned by the Authority. When the scheme was sanctioned, the requirement for the respondent was to construct tenement admeasuring 225 sq.ft. Merely because subsequently the Government Notification dated 2^nd March 2009

¶12

-: 2 :-

¶13

rpw-29/12

¶14

increased area of the tenement for rehabilitation purpose to 300 sq. ft, the said increase in the area of tenement will not apply to the schemes already sanctioned prior to 2^nd March 2009, more particularly when the tenements were already constructed prior to 2^nd March 2009. Hence, we do not find any merit in the review petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks to raise other contentions about the delay in allotment of tenements admeasuring 225 sq.ft. If the petitioner considers that any of his rights have been violated on account of such delay or that petitioner is entitled to any remedies, it will be open to the petitioner to prosecute such remedies before the appropriate forum and dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting such remedies.

¶16

Subject to above observations, review petition is dismissed.

¶17

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶18

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

Ramesh Chaturdas Sheth v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chaturdas Sheth v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 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

Mrs. Zinnia M. Khajotia and Ors. Vs Dallah Albaraka Investment Co.Ltd.

Mr.Phoolchand Prajapati Vs Vaidehi-Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd.

hill properties Ltd. Vs union bank of india and 8 Ors.

Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. Vs Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad

Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. Vs Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad

Makarand S. Kharadkar and Anr. Vs Hedge Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. .