Dismissed

Shashikant Narayan Vasagadekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2015WP/9296/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the High Court rejected the petitioners' claim for entry in the City Survey Record as flat owners, noting absence of requisite documents and keeping remedies open while declining adjudication on title rights.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no relief granted in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), or (c).

Shashikant Narayan Vasagadekar and Ors. Vs State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

Ladda

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 9296 OF 2005

¶5

Shashikant Narayan Vasagadekar and ors ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents.

¶6

Mr Anil Sale for the Petitioners Mr V. P. Malwankar, AGP “A” Panel for Respdt. nos. 1 to 3. Mr G.H. Keluskar for Respondent No.4. Mr S.G. Deshmukh for Respondent No.6.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 21^st AUGUST, 2015.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

¶10

2 Petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the flats in the building constructed on the property in question. This petition has been filed essentially for seeking a writ of mandamus against the Authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for entering the names of the petitioners in the City Survey Record as owners of the flats purchased by them. This petition proceeds on the footing that the petitioners are the owners of the flats in the property to which the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartments

¶11

Ladda 2

¶12

Ownership Act, 1970 (for short “the said Act” ) are applicable. Only if the provisions of the said Act are applicable, the flat purchasers can claim to have right, title and interest in the land below the building in which their flats are situated. As of today, there is nothing placed on record to show that all relevant documents required to be executed in terms of the said Act, have been executed. If according to the case of the petitioners, sixth respondent has agreed to subject the property in question to the provisions of the said Act, the remedy of the petitioners is against the sixth respondent.

¶13

Therefore, no relief can be granted in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). As far as prayer (c) is concerned, we do not see how the order of this Court dated 15^th December, 2004 has been breached.

¶14

Hence, the petition is rejected. We, however, make it clear that remedies of the petitioners are kept open. We make it clear that no adjudication is made on the rights claimed by the petitioners and the sixth respondent.

Shashikant Narayan Vasagadekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Narayan Vasagadekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 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

Naraindas Parmanad Sanatorium Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 22 Ors.

Nevitad Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary (State Excise) and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Shankar Keni (Lrs) 1 Ramubai Dattatraya Keni and Othrs

Mr. Harshad a. Kela Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

Eagle Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Stata of Maharashtra

Shashikant Narayan Vasagadekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.