Disposed

Prakash Rajaram Surve and Anr. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2016PIL/10/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2013 by observing that the first respondent had taken necessary steps, including cancelling the impugned resolution and setting aside a consent decree. The Court granted no relief in this petition but clarified that the legality of the City Civil Court's order and the factum of taking over possession are kept open for future litigation where petitioners may file a fresh PIL.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prakash Rajaram Surve and Anr. Vs Maharashtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

ospil10

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.10 OF 2013

¶5

Prakash Rajaram Surve & Anr. ...Petitioners
vs.
Maharashtra Housing & Area
Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

None for the Petitioners

¶7

Mr.Vishwajit Sawant for the respondent No.1
Mr.Y.R.Mishra for respondent No.10
Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sanjay
Udeshi and Netaji Gawade i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for
intervenor.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 P.D.NAIK,JJ.

¶9

 DATE : APRIL 12, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1The learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent-MHADA tendered an affidavit of Shri
Sanjay Vasudev Varade, the Deputy Engineer of the
first respondent which is dated 11th April 2016. In
paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, it is stated that
the Resolution No.6077 dated 23rd August 2004 which
is challenged by way of prayer clause (a) has been
cancelled by the first respondent by a Resolution
dated 7th August 2014. It is further pointed out
that by order dated 2nd July 2015 passed by the
learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Notice of
Motion No.1455 of 2011 has been made absolute and
the consent decree dated 5th May 2005 passed in
S.C.Suit No.6786 of 2002 has been set aside. The

¶12

2 ospil10

¶13

learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant
in Chamber Summons No.90 of 2015 states that they
have challenged the order passed by the City Civil
Court on 2nd July 2013 by filing a Writ Petition
No.7926 of 2013 and the said Writ Petition is
pending. However, this Court has not granted stay to
the order dated 2nd July 2013.

¶14

2Prayer clause (b) is for challenging the
consent terms dated 5th May 2005 filed pursuant to
the Resolution dated 23rdAugust 2004 bearing
No.6077. Now the consent Decree on the basis of the
consent terms has been set aside and the Resolution
dated 23rd August 2004 has been cancelled.

¶15

3In the affidavit of Shri Sanjay Vasudev Varade,
the Deputy Engineer of the first respondent, it is
claimed that the possession of the land allotted to
the second respondent has been taken over by the
first respondent on 7th December 2005. Reliance is
placed on the Possession Panchnama drawn on the same
day. The correctness of this factual aspect is
disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the applicant in Chamber Summons No.90 of 2015. He
states that a Civil Application is filed in the
pending writ petition for challenging the aspect of
taking over possession.

¶16

4Therefore, all possible steps have been taken
by the first respondent. Hence, at this stage, no
relief can be granted in this PIL. In view of the
statements made in the affidavit of Shri Sanjay

¶17

3 ospil10

¶18

Vasudev Varade, the Deputy Engineer of the first
respondent and subject to the contentions raised by
the applicant in the Chamber Summons No.90 of 2015,
we dispose of this petition.

¶19

5We, however, make it clear that the issue of
legality and validity of the order dated 2nd July
2013 passed by the City Civil Court as well as issue
of correctness, legality and validity of the factum
of taking over possession is also kept open.

¶20

6If occasion arises in future, it will be open
for the petitioners to file a fresh PIL seeking
appropriate reliefs.

¶21

(P.D.NAIK,J.)

Prakash Rajaram Surve and Anr. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prakash Rajaram Surve and Anr. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Saremal Sanklesha Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Raja Basu and Anr. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Shri. Mohan Marotrao Karemore Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary and Others

I. C. Welfare Women'S Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and 20 Ors.

Tapi Bachav Shetkari Sangharsha Samiti Koparli through Its Secretary Subhash Magan Nerkar and Other Vs the Honble Minister Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Muslim Shah Chapparband Samajik Vikas Mandal through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ishwar Madhukar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasudha Ganeshsingh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Santosh Shende and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Shraddha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs New Purshottam Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited Vs Hobotown Limited

Wallance Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Amrit Kumar Lulla and 3 Ors.

Smt. Asha D. Nalawade Vs Smt. Vimal Dayanand Nalawade

Federation of Adoption Agencies Vs the Central Adoption Resource Authority and Anr.