Disposed

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Ors. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 18 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2018WP/2948/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of four connected Writ Petitions. The court ordered that building occupants be put on notice they reside at their own risk, absolving petitioners of liability for any future collapse, while allowing disposal to proceed without hindering authority functions.

What did the court decide?

Occupants notified they reside at their own risk; petitioners not liable for collapse; Writ Petitions disposed of; Chamber Summons disposed of.

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Ors. Vs Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wpl 1920.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1920 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1918 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1919 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1934 OF 2018

¶6

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and ors. .. Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

ALONG WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 306 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1920 OF 2018

¶10

Moiz Dawoodbhai Palitanawala .. Applicants

¶11

In the matter between

¶12

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and ors. .. Petitioners Vs.

¶13

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and ors. .. Respondents

¶14

Ms.Sowmya Srikrishna a/w Mr.Denzil Arambhan, Ms.Nanki Grewal, Mr.Shlok Bolar I/b M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the Petitioners in all the Petitions.

¶15

Ms.Aparna Murlidharan a/w Ms.Sayli Apte I/b Mr.P.G.Zad, for Respondents No. 1 & 2 in all Petitions.

¶16

1/4

¶17

wpl 1920.18.doc

¶18

Mr.Anirben Tripathi, for Respondent No.2 in WPL/1919/2018. Mr.Ashif Husain, for Respondents No. 3A, 3B, 3C, 6, 30, 32, 33, 34 & 42 to 49 in WPL/1920/2018 and for Applicant in CHSWL/306/2018.

¶19

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &

¶20

M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 3^rd OCTOBER, 2018

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R.GAVAI J.) :

¶22

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

¶23

consent.

¶24

It is the contention of the Petitioners that they are

¶25

undergoing the cluster development of the area known as Bhendi- Bazar wherein several buildings are situated.

¶26

It is submitted that insofar as the buildings which are the subject matter of these Petitions are concerned, notice is already issued by Mhada for vacating the premises, however, the Respondents – occupiers are not vacating the same on the ground that the buildings are repairable and do not require demolition.

¶27

2/4

¶28

wpl 1920.18.doc

¶29

It is the contention of the Petitioners that in a similar situation where a building collapsed, the officers of the Petitioners were put behind the bars. It is submitted that if such an eventuality reoccures, the Petitioners may again be made liable if building collapses.

¶30

We find that in view of the orders passed by this Court on 24/01/2018 in similar situation in Notice of Motion No. 125 of 2018 in Suit No. 3299 of 2003 (Coram: G.S.Patel, J.) and the one recorded in the order passed on 24/09/2019 in Writ Petition Stamp No. 1536 ofp 2018 (Coram : Shantanu Kemkar & Sarang V.Kotwal, JJ.), it is necessary that the Respondents – occupants be put on notice that they would continue to reside in the premises at their own risk and that if any unfortunate incident happens, the Petitioners would not be liable for the same.

¶31

Needless to state that disposal of the Petitions will not come in the way of the Respondent – Mhada in considering

¶32

3/4

¶33

wpl 1920.18.doc

¶34

the representation of the Petitioners if any.

¶35

The Petitions are disposed of with aforesaid

¶36

observations.

¶37

In view of the disposal of the Petitions, Chamber Summons (L) No. 306 of 2018 does not survive and the same

¶38

also stands disposed of.

¶39

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.)

¶40

4/4

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Ors. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 18 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Ors. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 18 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Khedaru Ram Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Sava Biopharm Ltd. and Ors. Vs Union of India through Regional Director and Anr.

Dr Ramakant Ramkaran Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 23 Ors.

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 43 Ors.

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 15 Others Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 9 Others