New Shyam Dharti Kendra and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Oct 2013WP/1172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a writ petition claiming preferential allotment in a shopping complex. The bench held the claim premature as disposal was pending and the grievance regarding lack of individual notices misconceived following public notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected as grievance is premature and misconceived.

New Shyam Dharti Kendra and Others Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

 WP 1172/13

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.1172/2013

¶6

New Shyam Dharti Kendre
and others.

¶7

...Petitioners..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri M.G. Deokate, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri G.K. Thigale, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri Girish Rane, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE: 17.10.2013

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Heard.
2]Petitioners claim entitlement to allotment in a
shopping complex to be constructed by Municipal Council

¶17

on preferential basis. It is further urged that

¶18

 WP 1172/13

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

petitioners do not have individual notices to remove
encroachments.

¶21

3]We have perused the resolution dated 8.6.2004 on
which petitioners are placing reliance. That resolution
only contemplates that after encroachers vacate,
Municipal Council shall construct a shopping complex and
while making allotment of shops / blocks in it, first
preference shall be given to the displaced encroachers.
That stage is still not reached and hence the petition is
misconceived. In any case, Municipal Council has further
observed that a special permission from State Government
for that purpose would be required.

¶22

4]Insofar as absence of individual notices are

¶23

concerned, petitioners have approached this Court after a
public notice in newspaper. That public notice is dated
30.1.2013. It is, therefore, apparent that petitioners

¶24

are aware of the steps initiated by respondent no.3 -
Municipal Council. Grievance of absence of individual
notices is, therefore, mis-conceived.

¶25

5]Municipal Council has informed everybody in advance

¶26

and it is apparent that it is proceeding further in the

¶27

matter in accordance with law. Hence, we find the

¶28

 WP 1172/13
- 3 -

¶29

grievance to be pre-mature as also mis-conceived. The
writ petition is rejected.

¶30

 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶31

ndk/c1710138

New Shyam Dharti Kendra and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Shyam Dharti Kendra and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shaikh Ismail Shaikh Gafoor Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Ahmednagar Social Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha, Moha and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khaja Ahemad Mustafa Azhar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shobhabai Mansaram Pawar and Others Vs the Municipal Council, Amalner and Others

Shobhabai Trimbakrao Sawant and Another Vs Bhimrao Tulshiram Salve and Others