Allowed

Shri Santosh Bobby Dalvi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2019WP/13064/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed rejection of writ petition against exclusion of slum dwellers from rehabilitation list. Directed respondent authority to decide pending appeal within three months and stayed the order canceling eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to decide Appeal No. 615 of 2018 within three months; Order dated 8th March 2018 stayed.

Shri Santosh Bobby Dalvi and Ors. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

38 wpst 13665-19

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.13665 OF 2019

¶6

Shri Santosh Bobby Dalvi and ors. … Petitioners V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr.Angad Giri with Mr.Sagar Batavia, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.N.C.Walimbe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3. Mr.P.G.Lad with Ms.Priyanka Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2019.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Heard Mr.Angad Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr.N.C.Walimbe, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Learned counsel Mr.P.G.Lad appears for respondent No.4.

¶13

By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of

¶14

the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed legality and correctness of order dated 18^th February,

¶15

Priya Soparkar 2 38 wpst 13665-19

¶16

2019 passed by respondent No.2 and 29^th January, 2019 passed by respondent No.3

¶17

Fifteen petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present common proceedings.

¶18

Petitioners are slum dwellers of a plot of land bearing CTS No.160A/1 of village Majas, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District. It is stated that in accordance with the provisions contained under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the slum dwellers have formed Indiranagar Co-operative Housing Society whereafter a developer has been appointed to carry out redevelopment. It is further stated that the development plan has been sanctioned by the Slum Areas Authority.

¶19

Following the same, the list of eligible slum dwellers entitled to rehabilitation was prepared as per certified annexure-II dated 26^th December, 2005. Petitioners claim that their names were included in the said Annexure-II list thereby making them eligible to rehabilitation.

¶20

Priya Soparkar 3 38 wpst 13665-19

¶21

According to the petitioners, respondent No.4 passed an order dated 8^th March, 2018 cancelling the eligibility of the petitioners and thereby removing them from the said Annexure-II. It is contended that without serving any notice upon the petitioners and without affording personal hearing to the petitioners, the said order was passed. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that notice was duly served upon the petitioners which was duly verified.

¶22

Be that as it may, aggrieved by order dated 8^th March, 2018, petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No.3 on 16^th March, 2018 alongwith a stay application. Appeal has been registered as Appeal No. 615 of 2018. By order dated 29^th January, 2019, respondent No.3 declined to grant stay and rejected the stay application.

¶23

Against the aforesaid rejection order dated 29^th January, 2019, petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No.2 i.e. Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban, being Appeal No.108 of 2019.

¶24

Priya Soparkar 4 38 wpst 13665-19

¶25

By order dated 18^th February, 2019, respondent No.

¶26

2 declined to grant stay.

¶27

Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, court is of the view that it would be just and appropriate if the appeal filed by the petitioners against their exclusion from annexure-II list vide order dated 8^th March, 2018 is heard and decided expeditiously. At the same time, court is conscious of the fact that petitioners were found to be eligible in the annexure-II list dated 26^th December, 2005, which position remained for more than 12 years till 8^th March, 2018, when petitioners were found to be ineligible. It is not necessary at this stage to enter into the controversy whether petitioners were served notice or not before passing the order dated 8^th March, 2018.

¶29

In the light of the above, respondent No.3 is directed to take on board the Appeal No.615 of 2018 filed by the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of furnishing an authenticated copy of

¶30

Priya Soparkar 5 38 wpst 13665-19

¶31

this order. Till disposal of Appeal No.615 of 2018, order dated 8^th March, 2018 qua the petitioners shall remain stayed.

¶32

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

(UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

Shri Santosh Bobby Dalvi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Santosh Bobby Dalvi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. Vs Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Ragho Jana Bhingarkar and Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

Shri. Seth Sakharam Nemchand Jain Aushadhalay and Rugnalay Trust through President Vs Mr. Dipak Shankarrao Aaherkar

Shri. Anil Waman Mayekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Ladkoji Sitaram Ayare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Shri. Haresh Nandlal Meherchandani and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Anr.