Disposed

S. D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Department of Revenue and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2018WP/839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two connected writ petitions by directing the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee to decide a dispute regarding entitlement to alternate accommodation for Hut No.120-B/260 within three months, keeping an eviction order in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Apex Grievance Redressal Committee to decide allocation of alternate accommodation for Hut No.120-B/260 within three months; eviction order held in abeyance.

S. D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Department of Revenue and 6 Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WPL 1890-17 with WPL 3430-17.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1890 OF 2017

¶4

S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3430 OF 2017 Sunita Shantaram Ombale ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Pooja Patil – Khandeparkar for the petitioner in WP(L) No. 3430/17 and respondent No.6 in WP(L) No.1890/17.

¶8

Mr. Hemant Haryan, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 in WP(L) No. 3430/17.

¶9

Mr. U.S. Upadhyay, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in WP(L) No.1890/17.

¶10

Ms. Preetam Gupta i/by Mr. Yuvraj Patil for respondent No.8 in WP(L) No.1890/17.

¶11

Mr. G.W. Mattos for respondent No.3 in WP(L) No. 3430/17.

¶12

Mr. Kunal Kanungo i/by Mr. S. Venketeshwar for respondent No.5 in WP(L) No.1890/17.

¶13

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 14^th MARCH, 2018.

¶15

1/4

¶16

WPL 1890-17 with WPL 3430-17.doc

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Parties through their Counsel.

¶19

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the dispute between the petitioner and 8^th respondent in regard to inclusion of the name of respondent No.8 and non inclusion of the name of the petitioner in Annexure II in respect of Hut No.120-B/260 is required to be considered by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. As we find that the grievance of the petitioner made in regard to entering the name of respondent No.8 in Annxure-II has remained undecided as its application No.132/2012 is still pending.

¶20

In the circumstances, as agreed by the parties appearing before us, we dispose of these petitions by directing the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No.8 in respect of Hut No.120-B/260 and record a finding as to who is entitled for allotment of the alternate accommodation in place of the said hut.

¶21

2/4

¶22

WPL 1890-17 with WPL 3430-17.doc

¶23

Let the decision as aforesaid be taken by the said authority within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the said Committee. Parties to appear before the said Committee on 7^th April, 2018 at 11.00 a.m.

¶24

We expect that the parties shall co-operate in deciding the matter by the said Committee within aforesaid period of three months and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶25

We also direct that till decision is taken by the said Committee the order of eviction dated 4^th August, 2015 and Appellate order dated 1^st December, 2015 shall remain in abeyance.

¶26

All contentions of the parties are kept open about entitlement of the petitioner and the 8^th respondent.

¶27

This order and the decision as may be taken by the

¶28

Committee shall govern the petitioner's application No.132/2012 which need not be decided separately.

¶29

3/4

¶30

WPL 1890-17 with WPL 3430-17.doc

¶31

With the aforesaid directions, both the petitions are

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this

¶34

order.

¶35

( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶36

4/4

S. D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Department of Revenue and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Its Department of Revenue and 6 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

M/S. Koli Construction Co. through Its Partner Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Narayan Ghude Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Vikrant Kishorbhai Mehta and Ors. Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Niraj Mansulhlal Ved Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Urban Development and 5 Ors.

Mr. Masood Abdul Aziz Fakih and Ors. Vs Mr. Shakeel Farid and Anr.

Mr. Upendradatt Shambhudatt Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector Thane and Ors.