Disposed

Haider Ali Abdul Majeed Shaikh v. the Honble Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2019PIL/17/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding rehabilitation of slum dwellers, the Court directed the Secretary Urban Development to verify if certain persons were already rehabilitated and issue orders to make tenements available if they were not.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary Urban Development to verify rehabilitation status within six months and pass necessary orders accordingly.

Haider Ali Abdul Majeed Shaikh Vs the Honble Chief Secretary… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(24)-PIL-17-19.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.17 OF 2019

¶3

Haider Ali Abdul Majeed Shaikh ..Petitioner Versus The Hon'ble Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ..Respondents

¶4

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra I/by Kameshwar Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶5

Mr. M. A. Sayed, AGP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 – MCGM. Mr. R. P. Ojha, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. Ashwin Bayes, Rent Collector 'K/E' Ward present.

¶6

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 22^nd AUGUST, 2019

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1] The sketchily drafted Public Interest Litigation only guides the Court that 28 persons who are proposed to be rehabilitated in the building constructed by Respondent No.4, being project affected persons had already been allotted alternative accommodation and we highlight Exh.A which records that 8 persons noted therein have been allotted flats on different floors in different buildings in Tungwa, Tata Nagar, Gautam Nagar and Jogeshwari.

¶9

2] Learned counsel for the Corporation states that depending upon which agency of the State is executing development work, project affected persons are rehabilitated by said agency.

¶10

BGP. 1 o f 2

¶11

(24)-PIL-17-19.doc .

¶12

3] This creates utter confusion for the reason the Corporation as well as the Slum Rehabilitation Authority may have no clue.

¶13

4] Under the circumstances the only way forward to ensure that nobody takes benefits of two accommodations on the plea of being a project affected person is to direct the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra to treat the Petition as a representation to him. The annexures with the Petition would be looked into by the Secretary, Urban Development who would call for the relevant records from the different agencies of the State and would decide whether the 8 persons referred to in Exh.A and the 20 persons referred to in Exh.B were already rehabilitated. If the Secretary, Urban Development finds that said persons were already rehabilitated, he would pass necessary orders requiring 28 tenements which Respondent No.4 has to make available to the 2^nd Respondent for being allotted to other eligible persons. If said 28 persons or any of them are found not having been rehabilitated then they would be permitted to be rehabilitated in the 28 tenements which Respondent No.4 has to make available to the Respondent No.2.

¶14

5] Secretary, Urban Development shall pass the necessary orders within six months from today.

¶15

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶16

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

2 o f 2

¶18

BGP.

Haider Ali Abdul Majeed Shaikh v. the Honble Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haider Ali Abdul Majeed Shaikh v. the Honble Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra and 2 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

Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan Vs Executive Engineer and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Annarao Bhopale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Milin Vasant Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Shamrao Gidde Vs the Election Commission of India and Ors.

Vishnu Dashrath Panasare and Ors. Vs the Collector , Pune and Ors.

K. a. Qureshi Vs District Collector, Pune and Ors.

Rajkumar Mahadev Chorghe Vs General Mgr. Western Rly. Churchgate and Ors.

Association for Aiding Justice Vs Union of India and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Vs Shri Pramod Ravindra Dhuri and Ors.

Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan Vs Executive Engineer and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Annarao Bhopale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Dhananjaysinh Vinayakrao Jagtap Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pallazzio Hotel and Leisure Ltd.

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.