Dismissed

Ashok S/O Sowardhan Sahare v. Director/Marketing Shri N.N. Chintamani, Mumbai Gruh Nirman and Area Dev. Board and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2014LPA/407/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2012, the High Court of Nagpur upheld a single Judge's order dismissing the appellant's challenge to the cancellation of a tenement allotment. The Court ruled the appellant was ineligible under the corrected scheme for the Lower Income Group.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ashok S/O Sowardhan Sahare Vs Director/Marketing Shri N.N… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 lpa407.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2012 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3783 OF 2010.

¶5

(ASHOK SOWARDHAN SAHARE..VS..THE DIRECTOR MARKETING MUMBAI GRUH NIRMAN & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Mr.R.L.Khapre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. H.N.Verma, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Ms Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶12

P.R.BORA, JJ.

¶13

DATED : OCTOBER 09, 2014.

¶14

Heard. Also considered the proposed amendment and the documents annexed to the civil application.

¶15

By this judgment-in-appeal, dated 18^th June, 2012, the learned single Judge had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the respondent, cancelling the allotment of the tenement in favour of the appellant.

¶16

The respondents had floated an advertisement calling applications from the persons desirous of having a tenement for Economically Weaker Sections (below monthly income of Rs.8,000/-) for allotment of tenements. The appellant applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents. Admittedly, the income of the appellant was less than Rs.8,000/- per month. Though the appellant was initially allotted the tenement, on purely temporary basis, the

¶17

2 lpa407.12

¶18

allotment was cancelled by the respondents by the order dated 09.07.2009. The said order was subjected to challenge by the appellant in Writ Petition No.3783 of 2010 in which the judgment in appeal is passed by the learned single Judge.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The learned single Judge found on an appreciation of the material on record that though initially the scheme was floated for the Economically Weaker Sections, as per the advertisement dated 12.01.2009, by the corrigendum issued in two newspapers on 17.01.2009 it was made known to the public that the tenements were not meant for the 'Economically Weaker Sections' and were meant for the persons falling in the 'Lower Income Group'. Hence, by the corrigendum, it was mentioned that the eligibility criteria for seeking the tenement was income between Rs.8001 and Rs.12,000/- per month. The learned single Judge found that respondent MHADA had corrected the mistake in the advertisement dated 12.01.2009 by issuing the corrigendum on 17.01.2009. It was found that the appellant did not fall in the Lower Income Group, as admittedly the income of the appellant was less than Rs.8,000/-. Though, temporary allotment was mistakenly made in favour of the appellant on 25.05.2009 it was held by the learned single Judge that the same was rightly cancelled by MHADA on 09.07.2009 as the appellant was not eligible for the allotment under the scheme for the Lower Income Group.

¶20

Since the appellant was not eligible for allotment under the Lower Income Group, the learned single Judge

¶21

3 lpa407.12

¶22

rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to claim allotment of tenement in pursuance of the advertisement. The view expressed by the learned single Judge is the only possible view and there is no reason to interfere with the same in the letters patent appeal.

¶23

The submission made on behalf of the appellant that though the income of the appellant was less than Rs.8,000/- since there cannot be a reservation for the Lower Income Group with monthly income of Rs.8,001/- to Rs.12,000/-, the appellant would be eligible for allotment of the tenement in the Lower Income Group (monthly income between Rs.8,000/- and Rs.12,000/-) as the appellant is ready to pay the difference for acquiring the tenement in question is ill-founded and is liable to be rejected. So also, the judgments reported in AIR 2013 Karnataka 181 ( D. Sham Vs. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology, Bangalore & oth ), AIR 2009 SC 218 ( M.D. H.S.I.D.C. Vs. M/s. Hari Om Enterprises ) and AIR 2012 SC 1820 ( ITC Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. ) and relied on by the counsel for the appellant, have absolutely no bearing on the issue involved in this case.

¶24

Since, we find no merit in the letters patent appeal the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

RRaut..

Ashok S/O Sowardhan Sahare v. Director/Marketing Shri N.N. Chintamani, Mumbai Gruh Nirman and Area Dev. Board and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok S/O Sowardhan Sahare v. Director/Marketing Shri N.N. Chintamani, Mumbai Gruh Nirman and Area Dev. Board and 2 Ors.

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

Ravindra S/O Sitaramji Gadge Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 4 Others

Tarachand S/O Bisan Sakure, through P.O.A. Shri Pramod S/O Prabhakar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai

Ksl and Industries Limited, Thr. Its President Sorabh Tayal Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secty. and Others

Sau. Madhuri W/O Dilip Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai and 3 O

Sau. Anita W/O Kirat @ Kiran Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Women and Child Development Department and 3 Others

Smt. Umabai Wd/O Ghanshyam Pote Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi and 4 Others