Remanded

Usman Gani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2015WP/673/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court set aside orders directing demolition and vacating of structures due to non-consideration of documents produced by the petitioner regarding prior possession. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector to decide notices under Section 3Z2(1) of the Maharashtra Slums Act afresh after a fresh reply.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Deputy Collector to decide afresh after fresh reply by petitioners.

Usman Gani and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp-673-12.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

O.O.C.J.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.673 OF 2012

¶6

Usmana Gani and ors. ...Petitioners v/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.M.S.Bhandari i/b Ms.Pranjali Bhandari for the Petitioners. Mr.Milind More, Addl.G.P. for the State. Ms.N.Y.Sanglikar for the intervenor. Mr.T.J.Pandian for Respondent No.2.

¶9

... CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATED : 16 JUNE 2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The orders impugned in this Petition are order dated 6 February 2012 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal and the order dated 26 May 2011 passed by the Deputy District Collector (Encroachment & Removal) & Competent Authority, Kurla directing the Petitioners to demolish and vacate the subject structures.

¶12

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has invited my attention to the reply dated 17 January 2011 of the Petitioner No.1 through his Advocate, wherein the Petitioner No.1 has annexed several documents as Annexure “A”. On perusal of the impugned orders, I am satisfied that the documents

1/3

Uday P. Kambli

2/3

wp-673-12.doc

produced by the Petitioner No.1 right from the year 1986 (including the proceedings filed in the City Civil Court and thereafter Writ Petition No.3536 of 1986, wherein this Court had appointed Court Receiver) have not been considered by the Authorities.

¶18

Taking overall view of the matter and in the interest of justice, in my view it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Collector (E & R) & Competent Authority to decide the notices issued under section 3Z2(1) of the Maharashtra Slums (Improvements, Demolition & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 afresh. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(i) The impugned orders dated 6 February 2012 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and 26 May 2011 passed by the Deputy District Collector (Encroachment & Removal) & Competent Authority, Kurla are set aside.

¶21

(ii) The matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector (E & R) & Competent Authority to decide the matter afresh.

¶22

(iii) The Petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh reply in addition to the earlier reply and annex copies of documents thereto to show existence/possession of the shed/structure prior to 1 January 1995, within three weeks from today.

2/3

Uday P. Kambli

3/3

wp-673-12.doc

(iv) The Competent Authority shall decide the matter, expeditiously, after hearing the Petitioners and considering all the documents produced by the Petitioners.

¶28

(v) It would be open for the Respondent-Intervenors to apply to the Deputy Collector (E &R) & Competent Authority to hear them before taking any decision.

¶29

(iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶30

The Petition to stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

3/3

¶32

Uday P. Kambli

Usman Gani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman Gani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devdas Ramayya Koli and 13 Others Vs the Additional Collector and 5 Others

Reliance Jewellery Watches Pvt.Ltd Vs the Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport and 4 Ors.

Sangam Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Social Welfare Department and 5 Ors. and Nakoda Infrastructure (Applicant)

Rajdai Nandlal Shaw Vs Mahendra Mangruram Gupta and 6 Ors.

Vishwas Pandurang Shinde Vs Manisha Mahal Co-Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd and 4 Ors.

Union of India through the Chief Engineer Pune Zone Vs M/S. Arun Kumar Deedwania and Anr.