Dismissed

Shri Balasaheb Raghunath Lekawale v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Aug 2013WP/933/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed a second writ petition seeking a mandatory order for the MHADA to sell 100 sq.ft premises to petitioner. Bench held petitioner had no legal right to compel sale irrespective of whether premises were required for electricity equipment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed directing respondents to sell adjoining premises.

Shri Balasaheb Raghunath Lekawale Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp933-13

¶2

vai

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.933 OF 2013

¶5

Balasaheb R. Lekawale V/s.

¶6

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Anr.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.L.S. Gaikwad for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Vaibhav V. Parshurami for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr.Umashanker Upadhyay, A.G.P. for the State - Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

Leave to amend in terms of the draft amendments

¶15

tendered in Court, taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The amendments to be carried out within one week from today.

¶16

This is the second petition for the same reliefs. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.2503 of 2011, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) was a party by an order dated 08.01.2013, which reads as under :-

¶17

1/4

¶18

wp933-13

¶19

“1. The petitioner seeks an order directing the respondents to sell to him the adjoining premises admeasuring 100 sq.ft in a building developed by respondent no.1-MHADA. Firstly the petitioner has no right to compel MHADA to sell any premises to him. There is no policy to this effect either. The petitioner however, relies upon a purported Resolution dated 24.6.2004. As indicated in the affidavit in reply filed by MHADA such a decision cannot be taken in such meeting. The procedure for the same was not followed. Moreover, the premises are required for accommodating the electric equipment which is for the benefit of the entire building.

¶20

In the circumstances, Writ petition is dismissed.”

¶21

The petitioner challenged the order by filing a petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the said special leave petition by an order dated 01.04.2013, which reads as under :-

¶22

“Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to approach the High Court, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the High Court has failed to take into account some very material facts. The prayer is accepted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

¶23

We asked the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who had also appeared before this Court in the earlier writ petition, as to which document this High Court had failed to take into account, as was stated to the Supreme Court. With understandable embarrassment he suggested the three following documents.

¶24

He firstly indicated the resolution dated 24.06.2004.

¶25

2/4

¶26

wp933-13

¶27

However, that resolution has been specifically referred to in the said order dated 08.01.2013.

¶28

He then referred to a document dated 02.11.2011. This document was introduced only today for the first time by way of an oral application for amendment, which we granted today. It was not before this Court when the earlier Writ Petition was disposed off. The document is a letter from the Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply & Transport (BEST). The learned counsel states that the document correctly translated states that the electricity company does not require it for placing electrical equipment.

¶29

Assuming that this is the effect of the letter, it would make no difference. Even assuming that the room is not required by BEST for installation of electrical equipment, it does not lead to the conclusion that MHADA is in fact bound to sell it to the petitioner alone. MHADA is in fact not bound to sell it at all. No provision of law was indicated which entitles the petitioner compel MHADA to sell the property to him.

¶30

He then referred to the following paragraph in the minutes of a draft for approval :-

¶31

“In this regard, it has been decided that Shri Kishor Anant Lad may withdraw the Court case. Thereafter, the final decision will be taken about giving the gala. Implementation of the decision taken by the Authority for making allotment of the galas of additional area in the building 'Ram Bhuvan' to Shri Anil Sinkar and Shri

¶32

3/4

¶33

wp933-13

¶34

Balasaheb Lekawale, 387, Lakshmi Sadan.”

¶35

This document cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as a decision of MHADA to sell the said property to the petitioner. The plain language merely indicates that a decision regarding the same was still to be taken. Even the price has not been indicated. In any event MHADA cannot dispose of or be compelled to dispose off its properties in such a manner.

¶36

In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶38

4/4

Shri Balasaheb Raghunath Lekawale v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Balasaheb Raghunath Lekawale v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri S.S.Shah and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

K Arjunan Nadar and 1 Ors. Vs Administrator and Divisional Commissioner and 7 Ors.

Jagdish Chakubhai Mistry and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Shubham Fabrics Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Kanta Tejbahadur Singh Vs Dy. Director of Education and 2 Ors. Tejbahadur a. Singh and Ors.

Jagat Prakash Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 12 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.