Disposed

Mahadev Viththlsa Katave and 8 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2017WP/2769/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought inclusion of petitioners names in Annexure II and release of rent compensation. The court directed the Competent Authority to decide pending applications of petitioners 2 to 9 within six weeks and release compensation to eligible tenants within four weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Competent Authority to decide applications of petitioners 2 to 9 within six weeks and release compensation to eligible tenants within four weeks.

Mahadev Viththlsa Katave and 8 Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

(WP 2769 of 2016)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 2769 OF 2016

¶6

Mahadev Viththalsa Katave and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ***********

¶7

Mr.Shivraj Kunchage i/b. Mr. Altaf Khan for the Petitioners

¶8

Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6

¶9

Mr. Chetan Mhatre i/b. Utangale & Co. for Respondent No.4

¶10

Mr. Sagar Paatil for Respondent -BMC

¶11

Ms. Leena Shah i/b. Shah & Juria Associates for Respondent No.8 ***********

¶12

CORAM : V.M. KANADE &

¶13

P.R. BORA, JJ

¶14

DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2017

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

We are informed that Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 claimed that they are eligible and their names should be included in the Annexure II.

¶17

The learned counsel for Respondent No.8- Developer submits that so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, he is found eligible and they have no objection if the rent which is compensated to him is released. Petitioner No.1 claims to be legal heir of the Original Petitioner.

1/2

(WP 2769 of 2016)

The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that so far as Petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are concerned, they have already filed an application for consideration of their eligibility before the Competent Authority. However, no orders have been passed on the said application.

¶22

In an earlier round of litigation, we had given direction to the Developer to deposit an amount in lieu of the rent and also directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to release the said amount if the tenants are found eligible and their names are included in the Annexure II.

¶23

We, therefore, direct the Competent Authority to decide the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9's application / representation as expeditiously as possible, on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks. If they are found eligible, the Prothonotary and Senior Master may release the said compensation in lieu of rent, expeditiously, within four weeks thereafter. With these direction, the writ petition is disposed of. All contentions raised by all the parties are kept open.

¶24

[ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.]

¶25

Vaishali Tikam

¶26

2/2

Mahadev Viththlsa Katave and 8 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Viththlsa Katave and 8 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 8 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

Lloyd Francis Baptista Vs Anushka Baptista @ Hemlata Dodwani

Mr. Satish T. Borade Vs Indian Express Limited and Ors.

Shilpa Sud through C.A. Goldie Sud Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pradeep Bhanudas Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.