Quashed

Bhagwantibai Kanyalal Hemnani v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2023WP/1670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an ex parte stay order passed against a subsequent transferee in possession, who was not impleaded or given notice. The High Court of Bombay quashed the order, directing the settlement commissioner to decide the complaint afresh after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned ex parte stay order dated 22nd November 2021 was quashed and set aside, with a direction to the Authority to decide the complaint afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Bhagwantibai Kanyalal Hemnani Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

wp-1670/22.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2022

¶4

Bhagwantibai Kanyalal Hemnani.
 Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Others.

¶6

...Petitioner.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Minal Chandnani and Mr. Mayur Parwani i/b Jaiwant Chandnani &
Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mrs. Pooja Joshi Deshpande for respondent No. 6.

¶9

 Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

¶10

 Date : March 24, 2023.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

1. Heard. The petition takes exception to the ex parte stay order

¶13

dated 22nd November 2021 passed by respondent No.3–the Authorised

¶14

Chief Settlement Commissioner upon a complaint by respondent No.7.
The petitioner is a subsequent transferee of the subject property which
is subject matter of the stay granted by the impugned order dated 22nd
November 2021.

¶15

2. The admitted position is that the petitioner was not made party

¶16

to the proceedings and notice of hearing was also not issued to him.

¶17

Digitally signed by SACHIN patilsr SACHIN RAMCHANDRAPATIL RAMCHANDRA PATIL Date: 2023.03.27 19:01:32 +0530

¶18

1 of 3

¶19

wp-1670/22.

¶20

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in occupation and possession of the subject property and has vested
rights in the subject property which is being affected by reason of the
stay order passed.

¶21

4. Learned AGP supports the impugned order. He submits that no interference is warranted.

¶22

5.Considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner is in possession of the subject property. The principles of
natural justice require that notice be served upon the petitioner, who has
acquired vested interests in the property, in order to enable him to
contest the complaint filed by respondent No.7. Considering that no
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate
to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22nd November 2021
with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the application / complaint
of respondent No.7 afresh, after hearing the petitioner and all other
concerned parties. The petitioner to appear before respondent No.3 on
10th April 2023 after giving notice to respondent No.7–original
complainant. After hearing all concerned parties, respondent No.3 to

2 of 3

patilsr

wp-1670/22.

decide the complaint of respondent No.7 afresh on its own merits and in
accordance with law.

¶27

6. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶28

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶29

3 of 3

¶30

patilsr

Bhagwantibai Kanyalal Hemnani v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwantibai Kanyalal Hemnani v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalitadevi Rajwant Jaishwal Vs Deputy Collector ( Encrochment / Eviction) and Anr.

Vikram Parmeshwar Shinde Vs the Tahsildar, Taluka Madha, Dist. Solapur and Ors.

Ashirwad (I) Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Shri. Vasantrao Dodha Suryavanshi

F S Kerr and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Khozema Taherbhai Madraswala and Ors.

Shri. Narendrasingh Mani and Anr. Vs Vinodkuamr Shankarlal Songar and Ors.

Mr. Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske and Anr. Vs M/S. Gandhi and Associates, Thr. Partners, N.U.Gandhi and a.N.Gandhi and Ors.