This petition sought writ of mandamus directing Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority to initiate proceedings evicting respondent No. 3. The court held that since the petitioner had no title in the premises, the petition could not be entertained and was dismissed.
Petition rejected.
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.
oswp487
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2016
Pravin |Ankush Mayekar ...Petitioner
vs.
Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
...Petitioner
Mr.V.R.Tripathi for the Petitioner
Ms Rupali Dixit i/b M/s.Sharmila Deshmukh for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr.Prashant Karande for respondent No.3
Mr.V.S.Upadhyay, AGP for respondent No.4
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2016
P.C.:
1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A
writ of mandamus is prayed for against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 enjoining them to initiate
proceedings under section 95-A of the Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Act,1971 against the
respondent No.3
2The learned counsel for the petitioner states
that out of four buildings on the property, three
have been demolished. As the fourth one is not
demolished, the redevelopment has not commenced. As
a result, the petitioner and others are occupying
the transit camp for last more than 12 years. The
contention of the petitioner is that only because
the respondent No.3 has not vacated the premises in
oswp487
2
his possession, the development work could not
commenced.
3If the grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not taking any steps for
allotting permanent accommodation to him, it is for
him to proceed in accordance with law in that
behalf. The petitioner has no right, title or
interest in respect of the premises of the
respondent No.3. Therefore, at the instance of the
petitioner, this petition cannot be entertained.
4Accordingly, writ petition is rejected, while
keeping the remedies of the petitioner expressly
open. We also make it clear that notwithstanding
the rejection of this petition, if the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 find that action of eviction needs to be
initiated against the respondent No.3, they are free
to do so in accordance with law.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the MHADA to initiate proceedings under section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971 against a third party again
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pravin Ankkush Mayekar
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
A.S.Oka
Anuja Prabhu-dessai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court