Dismissed

Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2021WP/8449/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order allowing the impleadment of MMRDA in a special civil suit regarding land acquisition. The petitioners argued MMRDA should not be a party based on precedent, but the court found impleadment necessary for the MMRDA to protect its ownership claim, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impleadment of MMRDA is dismissed with no direction.

Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan and Ors. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8449 OF 2021

¶5

Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan & ...Petitioners
Others

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Others...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shrinivas Bobde, i/b Ms. Deepali Kedar, for the
Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for Respondents Nos. 1 to
3-State.

¶10

CORAM:Smt. Bharati Dangre, J. DATED: 3rd December 2021

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2021.12.04 11:04:52 +0530

¶13

Heard.

¶14

2.The present Petition is filed by the Petitioners who are
Plaintiffs who instituted Special Civil Suit No. 3024 of 2006

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

¶17

seeking a declaration to the effect that the Award dated
16.09.1975 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(6), Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District has become null
and void. The aforesaid relief is sought in view of the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that the said
proceedings have lapsed.

¶18

2. In the said suit, the Collector as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer are impleaded as Defendants.

¶19

3.During the pendency of the said suit, a chamber
summons is taken out by the MMRDA, seeking impleadment
in the suit, with specific pleadings to the effect that the
Applicant-MMRDA was allotted various parcels of land in
Bandra Kurla Complex by the Government of Maharashtra
and the possession was also made over to it by the Revenue
Authority, also various parcels of land bearing various CTS
numbers were also measured by MMRDA from CTSO, Bandra

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

¶22

under M.R. No. 271/12 and were subdivided.

¶23

4.In the aforesaid context and also giving reference to the
earlier special civil suit which was filed, being S.C. Suit No.
2116 of 2012, the impleadment is sought on the ground that
if it is declined irreparable loss will be caused, in view of the
interest of the MMRDA in the property involved in the suit.

¶24

This chamber summons is allowed by the City Civil
Court under the impugned order dated 15.02.2020,
resultantly this Petition.

¶25

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would

¶26

vehemently submit that the MMRDA should not have been
impleaded as a Respondent/Defendant, since the Collector
and the Land Acquisition Officer were already parties to the
suit and relying upon the decision in the case of Santosh
Kumar & Others v Central Warehousing Corporation

¶27

& Anr reported in (1986) 2 SCC 343, the proposition
enunciated is to the effect that even though Collector make an
order and he acted as an agent of the Government, and the

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

¶30

legal character of the award made by the Collector is that of a
tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government, if such is
a proposition, any other agency cannot bring any claim may
be on the ground that the award is suffering from any fraud,
corruption or collusion. The principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgment, may be a well settled principle of law, but
here is a case where during the pendency of the suit, the
interest has accrued to the MMRDA and it is seeking its
impleadment to protect its interest. In any case the plaintiff
had at an earlier point in time instituted a suit against
MMRDA and had obtained order in his favour.

¶31

6.In the wake of the aforesaid, the impugned order that
allowed the chamber summons, on the assertion of the
MMRDA that it is the owner of the suit property and since the
Plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that they are the owners
of the suit property, their impleadment is very much necessary,
in the capacity as a ‘necessary party’.

¶32

7. The impugned order, therefore, do not suffer from any

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

31-WP8449-2021.DOC

¶35

illegality. There is no merit in the Petition.

¶36

8. The Petition is dismissed.

¶37

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)

¶38

Page 5 of 5

Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Majidunnisa Abdul Rauf Khan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs Sanjo Motors and 2 Ors.

Meerabai Sukdev Kadam Vs Bebi @ Minakshi Chandrakant Jagtap

Sou. Akanksha Dayanand Bobade Vs Dayanand Vishnu Bobade

Samadhan Navnath More Vs Baydabai Madhukar More and Anr.

Laxmikant S/O Chandrakant Mhalagi Vs Deepali W/O Laxmikant Mhalagi and Anr.

Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Changuna Ramdas Ranasing and Ors.