The petitioners claimed alternative accommodation for a demolished room. The Court held that factual disputes regarding area calculations are not suitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and rejected the petition.
Petition rejected; petitioner relegated to alternative remedy.
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.
924-WP-159.17
BDPSPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 159 OF 2017
Mr. Hemant B. Dalal
…. Petitioner.
V/s
Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others …. Respondents.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra for the Petitioner. Ms. Vandana Mahadik for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Harinder Toor a/w Mr. S.B. Pawar and Ms. Swati Sawant i/b M/s. S.K. Legal Associates for Respondent No. 4.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE: 21st September, 2017
P.C.:-
1] This Petition involves various disputed questions of facts. One question is with regard to the entitlement of alternative accommodation in lieu of Room No.1 in the building, which was demolished for reconstruction. It is the contention of the Respondent – Developer that the area in occupation of the present Petitioner alongwith other claimants, was only 480 sq. ft., as against which, Developer has earmarked an area of Flat No. G-3 admeasuring 495 sq.ft. However, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the area in his occupation was 59.48 sq. mtrs.
1/2
924-WP-159.17
2] Another dispute is with regard to inter-se claim between the Petitioner, his brother and his sister. Not only this, perusal of the order dated 17/02/2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta & A.A. Sayed, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 1522 of 2013, would reveal that the present Petitioner, who appeared in person, had specifically refused to settle the matter. The Court had, therefore, recorded the statement on behalf of the Developer that an area in lieu of Room No.1 shall be provided for rehabilitation of Respondent No.4.
3] Petition, therefore, involves various disputed questions of fact and law, which cannot be decided without parties leading evidence in respect of their claims. We find that such an exercise would not be permissible under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4] Petition is, therefore, rejected, relegating the Petitioner to the alternative remedy available to him in law.
(M. S. KARNIK, J. ) (B. R. GAVAI, J. )
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can decide disputed questions of fact and law regarding alternative accommodation without parties leading evidence under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BDPSPS
Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
B. R. Gavai
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
