Disposed

St Anthony Sra Co. Op Housing Society Limited and 26 Others v. the High Power Committee and 6 Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2016WP/668/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

After counsel agreed to abandon the challenge to the impugned order concerning redevelopment benefits, the Court constrained the petitioners to vacate premises by 29th February 2016. It directed the developer to compensate eligible slum dwellers at Rs. 15,000 monthly and acknowledged a one-time deposit of Rs. 13,20,000.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to vacate premises by 29th February 2016; Developer to pay monthly compensation of Rs. 15,000 to eligible persons and execute agreements.

St Anthony Sra Co. Op Housing Society Limited and 26 Others… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

909-OSWPL2822-15+.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2822 OF 2015

¶4

St. Anthony Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & 27 Ors.…Petitioners
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3337 OF 2015

¶9

St. Anthony Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & 27 Ors.…Petitioners
Versus

¶10

The High Power Committee & 6 Ors.

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar, with Mr. Sandeep V. Bane, for the
Petitioners in both Petitions.

¶13

Ms. Purnima Kantharia, G.P., for Respondents Nos. 1 and 4 in
WPL/2822/2015 & for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in
WPL/3337/2015.

¶14

Mr. Chirag Balsara, i/b Mr. Ajay Patil, for Respondent No. 5 in
WPL/2822/2015 & for Respondent No. 7 in WPL/3337/2015.

¶15

CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:22nd January 2016

¶16

PC:-

¶17

1.By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a Writ or

¶18

1 of 5

¶19

909-OSWPL2822-15+.DOC

¶20

Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction in that nature
calling for the record and proceedings pertaining to an order dated
1st January 2015 disposing of a Claim/Application No. 304 of 2011
and after scrutinizing it for its validity and legality quash and set
aside the same.

¶21

2.The Petitioners have sought a declaration in terms of prayer
clause a(iii).

¶22

3.After the Writ Petition was argued for some time, on
instructions from the Petitioners, it is agreed that the Petitioners
would not press their challenge insofar as the declarations claimed
in prayer (a) and for Writ of Certiorari in prayers (b) and (c).

¶23

4.They are also not seeking any relief in terms of prayer clause
(d).

¶24

5.All such prayers and reliefs are given up on the specific
understanding that redevelopment of the property undertaken by
the Developers, namely, Respondent No. 7 pursuant to a Letter of
Intent (“LoI” for short) and under which benefits are conferred on
the members of the Petitioner No. 1-Society would be extended to
all such eligible Petitioners as are presently found eligible.

¶25

6.It is further agreed that those of the Petitioners who have
applied for declaring them as eligible and proceedings in that behalf
are pending, upon conclusion of the proceedings and order in
favour of the Petitioners, even they will be accommodated in the
Scheme.

¶26

2 of 5

¶27

909-OSWPL2822-15+.DOC

¶28

7.It is further agreed between the parties that so long as the
permanent alternate accommodation meant for eligible slum-
dwellers is not ready for occupation, all such eligible persons and
beneficiaries of the Scheme would be entitled to certain temporary
benefits. Since it is not possible to arrange for a temporary/transit
accommodation, a compensation in lieu thereof and determined at
Rs. 15,000/- per month for residential/residential-cum-commercial
would be paid and such compensation will be paid monthly. Such of
the Petitioners who are eligible would be paid this amount for a
period of two years. However, the payment would commence on
the Petitioners' vacating the existing structures and handing over
vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the Developer so as to
enable him to demolish those old structures and redevelop the
property.

¶29

8.In the event, this project is not completed within two years,
then, the compensation would be revised if agreed along with
others and also in case of the Petitioners and such of them who are
later on found to be eligible.

¶30

9.The Petitioners shall vacate their existing premises on or
before 29th February 2016 peacefully and hand over them to the
Developers for demolition. This direction is issued because of a
request of the Petitioners to grant them four weeks time and also on
an undertaking that none others than the Petitioners and their
family are in possession of the existing structures, no third party
have been inducted nor the existing premises have been transferred
in any manner. It is stated that some of the Petitioners and who are
not eligible have filed applications requesting that they be declared

¶31

3 of 5

¶32

909-OSWPL2822-15+.DOC

¶33

so and for enabling them to obtain the benefits of the Scheme on
par with others. If any applications of this nature are pending either
before the Initial Authority or in appeal, they shall be decided as
expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

10.We also record the statement of Respondent No. 7, on
instructions, that it shall abide by all such terms and conditions of
the LoI, including extending any differential compensation to such
of those occupants whose names figure in Annexure II “2” for
additional area over and above 269 square feet. It is agreed and we,
therefore, direct that such of the eligible Petitioners who have still
not signed and executed an agreement with the Developer, the
Developer-Respondent No. 7 shall take prompt steps and on or
before the date specified above, namely, 29th February 2016
execute such individual agreements, so that they can be assured of
the permanent alternate accommodation. Equally, we direct after
agreement between parties that the monthly payment of
compensation at the rate specified above shall be disbursed by a
bankers cheque.

¶35

11.Needless to clarify that in the event the Petitioners do not
vacate the premises as directed above by 29th February 2016, it
would be open for the Authorities as also the Developer to forcibly
evict them and if necessary with the police assistance. The local
Police Station shall extend all assistance in that behalf.

¶36

4 of 5

¶37

909-OSWPL2822-15+.DOC

¶38

12.It is also clarified that breach and violation of any of these
directions as above would invite proceedings under Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 as well.

¶39

13.We also record the undertaking given by Respondent No. 7,
on instructions, that a sum of Rs. 13,20,000/- by way of of Pay
Order shall be deposited in the account of the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority maintained by Respondent No. 7. This account shall not
be closed until the Slum Rehabilitation Authorities directs the
Respondent No. 7 to close the same.

¶40

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶41

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶42

5 of 5

St Anthony Sra Co. Op Housing Society Limited and 26 Others v. the High Power Committee and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St Anthony Sra Co. Op Housing Society Limited and 26 Others v. the High Power Committee and 6 Others

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

Shaikh Abdul Karim Mohd. Hanif Vs the Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem) and Competent Authority Dharavi Division and 4 Ors.

Shaikh Mohammad Hanif Abdul Aziz Vs the Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem) and Competent Authority and 4 Ors.

Jitender Singh Surinder Chadha Vs Hdfc Bank Limited and 6 Ors.

Manjushri Ramesh Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Miss. Avanti Pradeep Moghe Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Versova Tropicana Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Smt. Roselyn Ben and Ors.