Disposed

Shri Ishwateshwar Siddhesh Deep Co-Operative Housing Society v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2023NMW/81/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three connected writ petitions regarding development plans and tenant re-accommodation. It directed the MCGM to hear specific society representatives on revised plans, affirmed the developer's obligation to re-accommodate certified persons, and held that transit rent to heirs requires a court order of representation.

What did the court decide?

Order to dispose of three writ petitions, directing MCGM to hear specific respondents, affirming developer's re-accommodation obligation, and prohibiting transit rent release to heirs without court or

Shri Ishwateshwar Siddhesh Deep Co-Operative Housing… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

3-OSWP-895-2015+.DOC

¶2

Ganesh

¶3

Digitally signed by GANESH GANESH SUBHASH SUBHASH LOKHANDE LOKHANDE Date: 2023.08.02 11:39:33 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 895 OF 2015 WITH

¶6

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 275 OF 2018

¶7

WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 163 OF 2016 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 324 OF 2018 WITH

¶8

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 282 OF 2018 WITH

¶9

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 81 OF 2019

¶10

Salauddin Ibrahim Mehsaniya & Ors …Petitioners Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors …Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 815 OF 2020 WITH

¶13

CHAMBER ORDER (L) NO. 5799 OF 2023 WITH

¶14

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 273 OF 2018 WITH

¶15

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 306 OF 2019

¶16

WITH

¶17

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 282 OF 2018 WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 3287 OF 2018

¶19

Page 1 of 4 1st August 2023

¶20

3-OSWP-895-2015+.DOC

¶21

WITH

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 1455 OF 2019 WITH

¶23

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 444 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2016 WITH

¶24

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1658 OF 2019

¶25

Ms Rashida Kherodwala , for the Petitioner in WP 1455/2019. Mr Jahangir Khan , with Amanullah Khan, for the Petitioner in WP 85/2016.

¶26

Mr Sharad Bhansal , with Sonam Sethia, i/b Juris Corp, for the Petitioner in WP 3287/2018.

¶27

Mr Satyam R Gaud , with Raj Saraf, S Shah & MR Gaud, for the Petitioner in WP 895/2015.

¶28

Mr Sanjay Jain with Chirag Sarawagi, Ashmita Salecha, Riya Thakkar & Viraj Bansod, i/b Tushar Goradia, for the Applicant in IA/1658/2019 in WP 85/2016( Amended Respondent No. 8)

¶29

Mr Arif Bookwala , Senior Advocate , Cyrus Ardeshir, Viraj Jadhav

¶30

& Kivin P, i/b Chinmaya Acharya, for Respondent No.6.

¶31

Mr PG Lad , with Shreya Shah, for the Respondent-MHADA. Mr Sagar Patil , for the Respondent-BMC.

¶32

Mr Rohaan Cama , for Wing D Society ( Amended Respondent No. 9)

¶33

CORAM: G. S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 1st August 2023

¶34

PC:-

¶35

1. Mr Bookwala, on instructions, states that revised plans are to be submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

¶36

Page 2 of 4 1st August 2023

¶37

3-OSWP-895-2015+.DOC

¶38

2. (“ MCGM ”) for sanction. These will be considered on merits. We, however, make it clear that the MCGM is required to hear the 8th Respondent represented by Mr Jain, i.e., the society of Wings ‘E’ and ‘F’, as also the society of Wing ‘D’ represented by Mr Cama, apparently the 9th Respondent.

¶39

3. The decision on the revised plan is to be on merits and in accordance with existing development control rules, regulations and norms. We are expressing no opinion at all on the merits of the proposal canvassed by Mr Bookwala’s client, the developers in question.

¶40

4. The other issue that remains is about the re-accommodation of 212 persons who have been certified as eligible by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (“ MHADA ”). There is no question that this is the obligation of the developer and Mr Bookwala has quite correctly not disputed this aspect of the matter. How this is to be achieved in terms of a future construction is for the respective authorities to decide.

¶41

5. The consequences, however, of a failure to accommodate the 212 persons certified by MHADA are clear and are known to the developer as well. The developer will undoubtedly bear this in mind when it submits any proposal to the MCGM.

¶42

6. As far as Wings ‘A’ and ‘B’ are concerned, there are consent terms and the MCGM will be guided by those consent terms without requiring a separate written NOC from those two wings.

¶43

Page 3 of 4 1st August 2023

¶44

3-OSWP-895-2015+.DOC

¶45

7. All other contentions as between Wings ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘D’ and the developers are expressly kept open.

¶46

8. Any claims in regard to increases in transit rent are clearly the subject matter of civil proceedings and must be dealt with as such.

¶47

9. There is no question of releasing transit rent to any persons claiming to be heirs of a deceased certified occupants or tenants. There has to be an order of representation to the estate of the deceased certified occupants/tenants, whether by means of an heirship certificate, succession certificate, letters of administration or other valid order of a Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶48

10. This order will dispose of the three Writ Petitions and all Interim Applications in those three Writ Petitions.

¶49

11. All civil proceedings that are already filed or are to be instituted will proceed on merits.

¶50

(Neela Gokhale, J)

¶51

(G. S. Patel, J)

¶52

Page 4 of 4 1st August 2023

Shri Ishwateshwar Siddhesh Deep Co-Operative Housing Society v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ishwateshwar Siddhesh Deep Co-Operative Housing Society v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 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

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Yogesh Navnath Deokar and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission

Smt. Dipika Mahesh Pisal @ Dipika Chandrakant Pawar Vs Shikshan Seva Mandal, Malegoan, Thru Secretary, and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Bhopayya and 36 Ors. Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and 10 Ors.

Krishna Kumar Bhopayya and 36 Ors. Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and 10 Ors.

Manav Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.