Disposed

Upendra Anant Shetye v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2014WP/1258/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to execute a redevelopment agreement with eligible occupants, deposit compensation, and complete construction within two years, while reserving the dispute regarding rights between co-occupants for separate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 to execute agreement, deposit compensation to MHADA, and construct within two years; dispute between co-occupants kept open.

Upendra Anant Shetye Vs the Maharashtra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1258-12

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1258 OF 2012

Upendra Anant Shetye

..Petitioner.

V/s.

The Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr.Atul Damle with Mr. Sathyam Acharya for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Shankar P. Thorat for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶13

Mr. Umashankar Upadhyay, A.G.P. for respondent No.8 – State.

¶14

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 1ST JULY, 2014

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

By an order dated 18^th January, 2014 the matter came to be kept for final hearing. We accordingly proceed to decide the matter finally.

¶18

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶19

This Writ Petition is similar to Writ Petition No.2368 of

¶20

1/3

¶21

wp1258-12

¶22

In view of the order dated 24^th July, 2013 in Writ Petition No.2368 of 2012, this petition is disposed of by the following order:-

¶23

The NOC for redevelopment under DCR33(7) has been issued by MHADA in favour of respondent No.4. The only additional question pertains to a possible dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7. The list of existing tenements / occupants specified by MHADA contains the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7 at serial No.10. The issue as to which of these parties are entitled to any right in respect of the premises and the extent of such right, if any, are kept open. The parties are at liberty to adopt proceedings to have the same determined. The following order is passed subject to the above :-

¶24

(i) Respondent No.4 shall execute the usual agreement with all the eligible persons in respect of the premises pertaining to serial No.10 of the “List of Existing Tenants / Occupants” annexed to the NOC [Exhibit-B to the petition).

¶25

(ii) If the document is to be sent for adjudication under the Bombay Stamp Act, the parties will not execute the same and in that event, respondent No.4 shall after having the agreement approved by the petitioner and respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 forward

¶26

2/3

¶27

wp1258-12

¶28

the same for adjudication. Upon the execution of the agreement whether with or without adjudication, respondent No.4 and the petitioner and respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 shall take all steps necessary for having the same registered.

¶29

(iii) Respondent No.4 shall deposit with MHADA compensation in lieu of transit accommodation in respect of the area on the basis paid to the other occupants.

¶30

(iv) In the event of the construction not being completed within two years from today, liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings or make an application before the MHADA.

¶31

This order shall not prevent the authorities including the MHADA from taking any steps or adopting any proceedings against any of the parties.

¶32

No order as to costs.

¶33

3/3

Upendra Anant Shetye v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Anant Shetye v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.

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

Lalit P. Deshlahara Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

M/S. Bindiya Cable Vs Herumb Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and 9 Ors.

M/S.Vigneshwara Exports Ltd. Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and 4 Others.

arun sitaram kumar Vs mumbai pradesh arya vidya sabha and 4 Ors.

D.Y. Prabhu Vs the Presiding Officer, Ministry of Labour and Employment and Anr.

Jocky Gamilo Fernandes Vs the State of Maharashtra Anr.