Disposed

Noor Mohammed Khatri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 11 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2016PIL/66/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme as it excluded a Dargah not listed in Annexure-II. Disposing the petition, the Court held the grievance was settled by an order from the Deputy Collector mandating the Dargah's inclusion, thus requiring no adjudication on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on merit as grievances addressed by Deputy Collector's order; no adjudication on locus standi.

Noor Mohammed Khatri Vs Slum Rehabilitation… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

pil-66-15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2015

¶5

Noor Mohammed Khatri ...Petitioner v/s. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sachin Punde for the Petitioner. Mr.G.D.Utangale i/b Utangale & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Milind More, Addl.G.P. for Respondents Nos.9,10 & 12-State. Ms.Trupti Puranik for BMC. Mr.A.R.Pande for Respondents Nos.2,3 & 5. Mr.R.P.Ojha for Respondent No.6. Mr.Altaf Khan for Respondent No.7.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA &

¶8

A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4 JULY 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The

¶11

challenge in this PIL is to grant of approval to scheme of slum rehabilitation in accordance with the Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations of Mumbai. The challenge is based only on one contention. It

¶12

is contended that there is a Dargah in the property under redevelopment and the same has not been included in Annexure-II.

¶13

Today, a copy of the order dated 28 April 2016 passed by the Deputy

¶14

Collector, (Encroachment/Eviction), Competent Authority is placed on

1/3

Uday.P.Kambli

2/3

pil-66-15.doc

record. It directs that the Dargah shall be included in Annexure-II. It is pointed out that the developer has preferred an Appeal against the said order, which is scheduled to come up tomorrow before the Additional Collector.

¶20

In view of the order of the Deputy Collector, the grievance in the Petition is taken care of and therefore, the same need not be entertained. While disposing of this Petition, we must make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the issue of the locus of the Petitioner to file the present PIL.

¶21

Subject to what is observed above, the PIL is disposed of. We, however, make it clear that nothing observed in this order shall affect the Appeal before the Additional Collector.

¶22

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the basis of the order dated 2 April 2013 in Writ Petition No.67 of 2013 submits that the Petitioner may be impleaded as a party to the pending Appeal.

¶23

If, according to the Petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid order

¶24

dated 2 April 2013 he is entitled to be heard in the Appeal, it is open for him

2/3

Uday.P.Kambli

3/3

pil-66-15.doc

to make appropriate application before the Appellate Authority by pointing out the order dated 2 April 2013. If such application is made, the Appellate

¶30

Authority shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶31

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

¶32

3/3

¶33

Uday.P.Kambli

Noor Mohammed Khatri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Mohammed Khatri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 11 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

Nanda Samadhan Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dagdu Sardar Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Dhansingh Karghe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narayan Arjun Lahane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar-Pande Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Mr. Shriprakash Neel Vs the State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Land Revenue and Ors.

Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape and Anr. Vs the Central Adoption Resource Agency and Ors.

Suresh Puri Vs Sneha Suresh Puri

Ashwin Maruti Naik Vs Dhiraj Shyamji Gohil and Anr.

Guddu @ Mohammad Hafij Hamza Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vanashakti Public Trust and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and 9 Ors. and J.S.R.M. Media (Applicant)

Krunal Ravindra Rahate and Anr. Vs Pankaj Ranjit Singh Kapadia

Roohi R Khan Nee Roohi K Sethi and Anr. Vs Sucheta K Anand and Anr.