Disposed

Padma Vijay Velkar and 29 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2018WP/697/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding eviction and alternate accommodation eligibility, directing the BMC to decide pending appeals within four months while staying demolition and clarifying no adjudication was made.

What did the court decide?

Stay of demolition until appeal decisions are passed; direction to BMC to decide appeals within four months; liberty granted to revert if appeal status incorrect.

Padma Vijay Velkar and 29 Ors. Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wpl-3340.17.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3340 OF 2017

¶4

Padma Vijay Velkar and Ors.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Nikhil Chavan i/by Mr. P.M. Jadhav for the Petitioners. Mr. U.S. Upadhyay, AGP for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Vandana Mahadik for the Respondent – BMC.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 16^th FEBRUARY, 2018

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners after taking instructions of the petitioners states that the statement of the petitioners recorded in order dated 29th November, 2017 is correct and in fact all the petitioners have been held as ineligible for grant of alternate accommodation. He states that the statement recorded in order dated 19th January, 2018 may be clarified. The order dated 19th January, 2018 stands accordingly clarified. He further states that the Appeals have been preferred to the Municipal Corporation by all the petitioners on the issue of eligibility and the said Appeals are pending. We accept the statement. In view of this statement, till the disposal of

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

wpl-3340.17.odt

¶15

the Appeals, the petitioners can not be evicted. Therefore, we propose to dispose of this Petition. In case the statement regarding pendency of Appeals is found to be incorrect, we grant liberty to the Municipal Corporation to move this Court for recall of the order. Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order :-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(i) The Appeals preferred by the petitioners on the issue of their eligibility for grant of alternate accommodation shall be decided by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four months from today;

¶18

(ii) The decisions taken on the Appeals shall be communicated to the petitioners by the Municipal Corporation. If the petitioners are held to be eligible for grant of alternate accommodation, along with the decisions on Appeals, alternate accommodation shall be offered to the petitioners. Time of three weeks shall be granted to the petitioners to accept the alternate accommodation from the date of service of the decisions in Appeals to the petitioners. For the said period of three weeks, the subject structures of the petitioners shall not be demolished;

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

wpl-3340.17.odt

¶21

(iii) In the event the Appeals are dismissed, the subject structures of the petitioners shall not be demolished for a period of three weeks from the date on which the orders passed on Appeals are communicated to the petitioners;

¶22

(iv) We clarify that till the date of communication of the decisions on the Appeals preferred by the petitioners to them, the subject structures of the petitioners shall not be demolished;

¶23

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the petitioners are eligible for grant of alternate accommodation. We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question in what manner the petitioners shall be rehabilitated in the event they are found to be eligible;

¶24

(vi) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶25

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J)

¶26

(A.S. OKA, J)

¶27

3 of 3

Padma Vijay Velkar and 29 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Vijay Velkar and 29 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milind Madhav Patankar Vs Thane Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Kesari H.Mali Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Smt. Ishwaribai Kartarmal Sewlani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Manjit Singh Salooja Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Sunil Shridhar Poyrekar and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Azajuddihn @ Azruddin Aminuddin Siddiqui Vs Municipal Corporation for Creater Mumbai