Disposed

Subhash Ramrao Sagar v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2018WP/2395/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging notices directing possession handover. The court accepted undertakings from all parties including respondents MIDC, MMRCL, and the State regarding alternate settlement and liquor license transfer, empaneling the petitioner to a new unit and pending compensation. The order was passed solely by consent and explicitly disclaimed as precedent.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of subject to undertakings by the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 to provide alternate accommodation, and Respondent No.3 to pay compensation.

Subhash Ramrao Sagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Megha 909_wpl_957_2018.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2018

¶4

Subhash Ramrao Sagar …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vishal Kanade with Ms Tanmayi Rajadhyaksha, Mr. Amit Karle i/b. M/s. S.K. Legal Associates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. L.T. Satelkar, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Ms Shyamli Gadre with Mr. Pranav Thakur i/b. M/s. Little and Co. for the Respondent No.2-MIDC. Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Sawant for the Respondent No.3-MMRCL.

¶11

Mr. Sagar Patil for the Respondent No.4-MCGM

¶12

Ms Pooja Thorat with Mr. Ankul Seth for the Respondent No.5.

¶13

Mr. Pawan Sagar with Mrs. Aruna Tawde, son and daughter respectively of the Petitioner are present in-person.

¶14

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶15

DATED: 7^th AUGUST, 2018.

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶18

of India the Petitioner is challenging the three notices dated 28^th February, 2018 at Exhibits -A1 to A3 and the impugned decision dated

¶19

16^th March, 2018. By the said notices /decision the Petitioner is directed to handover possession of the Units No.746, 747 and 748. It

¶20

Megha

¶21

1/5

¶22

Megha 909_wpl_957_2018.doc

¶23

is not disputed that the Petitioner in lieu of these three units is entitled for one unit admeasuring about 269 sq. ft.

¶24

The Respondent No.2 has placed on record letter dated 26^th July, 2018 addressed by the Respondent No.5 -Hubtown Ltd. (formerly known as Akriti Nirman Pvt. Ltd.) to the Deputy Engineer, MIDC, which reads thus:-

¶25

“As per instruction of MIDC, with reference to writ petition no.(st) 957 of 2018. We Hubtown Ltd. (Formerly known as Akruti Nirman Pvt.Ltd.) are ready to hand over the 1(one) no. commercial gala/unit to Mr. Subhash Ramrao Sagar the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.957 of 2018 admeasuring 269 sq. ft. carpet area at ground floor in at Pocket no.5 Rehab-1 within 1 month or Pocket no.6 within 6 months.”

¶26

The said letter is taken on record and marked 'X' for

¶27

identification.

¶28

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-MIDC states that out of 67 units, the occupants of 64 units have

¶29

Megha

¶30

2/5

¶31

Megha 909_wpl_957_2018.doc

¶32

been provided alternate accommodation at villages-Kurla, Kanjurmarg and Chakala. It is stated that though the Petitioner claims to be in possession of three units i.e. Units No.746, 747 and 748, he is entitled for one unit. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 makes a statement that in lieu of Units No.746, 747 and 748 the Petitioner will be provided one unit admeasuring 269 sq ft. in village Marole either from pocket No.5 or pocket No.6, as stated in the letter dated 26^th July, 2018. In the event, the Petitioner opts for unit in Pocket No.5, possession of the same will be given within a period of one month whereas in the case of unit in Pocket No.6, possession will be given within a period of six months.

¶33

Mr. Milind Sathe, the learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.3-MMRCL, under instruction, has also made a statement that the Petitioner will be paid compensation of Rs.11,000/per month until possession of unit admeasuring 269 sq. ft. is handed over to him.

¶34

Mr. Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, under instructions, submits that in lieu of three units No.746, 747 and 748 the Petitioner is ready to accept the offer of alternate premises i.e.

¶35

Megha

¶36

3/5

¶37

Megha 909_wpl_957_2018.doc

¶38

one unit admeasuring 269 sq.ft at Pocket No.6 at village-Marole. He further submits that the Petitioner shall handover possession of the three Units No.746, 747 and 748 to the Respondent No.2 within a period of one week from today.

¶39

The aforesaid statements made on behalf of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.3 are accepted as undertakings to the Court.

¶40

The Petitioner submits that he will surrender the whole

¶41

stock of unsold liquor to the Collector-Excise as required under Rule 61 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that upon taking possession of the unit in Pocket No.6, the Petitioner will seek transfer of liquor license.

¶42

Mr. L.T. Satelkar, the learned AGP for the Respondent-

¶43

State, under instructions, states that Collector-Excise shall cooperate and shall take possession of the stock of unsold foreign liquor from the Petitioner and will comply with mandate of Rule 61 of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of stock of unsold foreign liquor from the Petitioner. He further

¶44

Megha

¶45

4/5

¶46

Megha 909_wpl_957_2018.doc

¶47

states that as regards the transfer of license, the Petitioner is at liberty to seek such transfer upon following due process of law and that the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. Statements are accepted.

¶48

Subject to above, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that since this order is passed with consent of the parties same should not be treated as precedent.

¶49

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶50

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶51

Digitally signed MeghaShridhar by MeghaShridhar ParabDate: Parab 2018.08.0918:34:47 +0530

¶52

Megha

¶53

5/5

Subhash Ramrao Sagar v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Ramrao Sagar v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salebhai Yusufally Plumber, through B T Plumber Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Others

Lalit Timothy Dsouza Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut through Poa, Mr. Ramesh M. Bhekre Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Anr.

Doric Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

The Satara District Cooperative Housing Society Federation Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Agriculture, State of Maharashtra and Ors.