Petitioner challenged the allotment of one shop in lieu of nine demolished premises. Court held that State policy does not grant equivalent area unless explicitly mentioned and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction to allot nine shops or permit reconstruction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(WP 865 of 2012)
VAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 865 OF 2012
H. Rehman Khan ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents
Mr.G.S. Hegde i/b. U.V. Singh for Petitioner Ms. H.Y. Shah -AGP for Respondent No.1 Ms. Kiran Bhagalia i/b. Chitra Phadke for Respondent No.2
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 20, 2014
P.C.
1/5
(WP 865 of 2012)
same plot.
3. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the writ petition, are as under:
The Petitioner claims to be in lawful use, occupation and possession of 9 galas since about much before 1976. The Bombay Municipal Corporation issued a notice under section 314 of the BMC Act on 12.2.1996 alleging that the structures, which were constructed by the Petitioner, were on the road and the land was required for the purpose of road widening. The Petitioner challenged the said notice by filing a suit in the City Civil Court. In the said suit, the Corporation made a statement that in view of the Government's order, the work of improvement of Eastern Express Highway was being undertaken by the MMRDA and in view of the statement, the suit was allowed to be withdrawn. After the suit was withdrawn, the Petitioner made the representations to the Respondents, alleging that without following proper procedure, the Respondents were not entitled to take demolition action. He, therefore, filed a second suit on 30.11.2005 in respect of the remaining 7 shops. However, the said suit premises were demolished before the matter would be called in the City Civil Court. The Petitioner then filed the Writ Petition No. 5 of 2006, challenging the action of demolition by the Respondents. A contempt petition was also filed. However, the petition and the contempt petition both were disposed of by this Court. The Respondents MMRDA informed the Petitioner on 18.1.2010 that he
2/5
(WP 865 of 2012)
was entitled to get one tenement of 225 sq.ft. and further 525 sq.ft. area on payment of Rs.6039 per sq.ft. The Petitioner was thus allotted one shop in place of his 9 shops. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3/5
(WP 865 of 2012)
Ghatkopar dated 22.11.2007 in which the structures which were occupied by the Petitioner, were mentioned. It was submitted that the concerned authority, after having seen the areas, had observed that the slum hutments were prior to 1995. It was contended that the State of Maharashtra, by virtue of the policy decision, had agreed to relocate and rehabilitate the project affected persons. It was, therefore, submitted that the decision taken by the Deputy District Collector was patently illegal.
4/5
(WP 865 of 2012)
VAISHALI TIKAM
[A.K. MENON, J.]
[V. M. KANADE, J.]
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to alternate accommodation of equivalent area under the Government of Maharashtra policy dated 12th December, 2000.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
H. Rehman Khan
The State of Maharashtra
The MMRDA
V. M. KANADE
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court