Allowed

Radheshyan Dhanilal Yadav and 45 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Another.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2018WP/740/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned demolition threats against petitioners' structures within 10 meters of a Tansa pipeline. The court held that eligibility for alternate accommodation must be decided by the Municipal Corporation, not the Assistant Municipal Commissioner. The petition was disposed of by ordering the Municipality to decide eligibility within three months and a stay on demolition pending t

What did the court decide?

Municipality to decide eligibility for rehabilitation within three months; demolition stayed pending decision and for three weeks thereafter.

Radheshyan Dhanilal Yadav and 45 Ors. Vs Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

rsk

34-WPL-3673-17.doc

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3673 OF 2017

¶5

Radheshyan Dhanilal Yadav and Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Another

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. V. T. Dubey for the Petitioners. Ms. Shital Mane for the Respondent-BMC. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for the Respondent-SRA.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 23^rd FEBRUARY, 2018

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and for the Respondent No.1. The notice at Exhibit “B” to the petition proceeds on the footing that the structures of the Petitioners are required to be demolished as the same are falling within 10 meters from Tansa pipeline. However, in the said impugned order/notice, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner 'L' Ward has stated that the issue of eligibility for grant of alternate accommodation cannot be decided by the Municipal Corporation.

¶12

As per the directions issued in PIL 140 of 2006, the issue of eligibility for grant of alternate accommodation is required to be decided by Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner has relied upon the decision by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority about eligibility of the Petitioners under a slum rehabilitation scheme.

¶13

The notice has been issued for demolition of the structures of the Petitioners on the ground that they are within 10 meters from the main water pipeline. Hence, the stand taken in the impugned order/notice

rsk

34-WPL-3673-17.doc

2/2

cannot be sustained. The Municipal Corporation will have to decide the issue of eligibility.

¶18

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i) We direct the Petitioners to appear before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, L ward of the Respondent No.1Municipal Corporation on 15^th March 2018 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioners shall produce the requisite documents in support of their claim for eligibility;

¶21

ii) The claim for eligibility shall be decided within a period of 3 months from today. The orders passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, L ward of the Municipal Corporation shall be immediately communicated to the Petitioners;

¶22

iii) If the Petitioners are held to be eligible, the letter of offer of rehabilitation containing all the particulars shall be served along with the order;

¶23

iv) Till the date of communication of the order on the issue of eligibility and for a period of 3 weeks from the date of communication of the decision on the issue of eligibility to the Petitioners, the action of demolition in respect of the subject structures cannot be taken ;

¶24

v) All contentions of the parties on the issue of eligibility of the Petitioners are kept open;

¶25

vi) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J)

Radheshyan Dhanilal Yadav and 45 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyan Dhanilal Yadav and 45 Ors. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Another.

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

Surajmal Jain Chagau Lal and 9 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Ambaji Niketan Chsl. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mohamed Afsar Sayed S/O Mohamed Ayub Vs Municipal Corpration of Greater Mumbai

Sardar Inamdar Passa Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Rashida Banomohd Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Shyamsundar Maman Kandera Vs Assistant Engineer Assistant Municipal Commissioners Office and 6 Ors.