Disposed

Liladhar Vitthal Gawde v. Hariprasad Ganpat Barai

Bombay HC26 Apr 2024IA/1940/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition was disposed of following a remand. The court directed MHADA to expeditiously decide the petitioner's application for an alternate commercial structure. Since the developer had deposited transit rent with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the court refused to interfere with the redevelopment project's progress.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MHADA to decide application for alternate commercial structure expeditiously; transit rent to continue being paid by developer.

Liladhar Vitthal Gawde vs Hariprasad Ganpat Barai — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:39307

¶2

905-WP-7827-2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7827 OF 2023 WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12989 OF 2023

¶6

Hariprasad Ganpat Barai ...Petitioner/ Applicant Versus The State Of Maha. Thr. Gp And Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1940 OF 2024

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.7827 OF 2023

¶10

Liladhar Vitthal Gawde ...Applicant Versus Hariprasad Ganpat Barai ...Respondents

¶11

Adv. Ashish Dubey a/w Rahul Tripathi & Ajay Dubey for the Petitioner. Adv. Shahajirao Shinde a/w Aishwarya Shinde for Respondent No. 3 [AGRC]. Adv. Aparna D. Vhatkar for Respondent No. 4 [SRA]. Adv. Savita Prabhune, AGP for the Respondent State. Adv. P. G. Lad for MHADA.

¶12

Adv. Rajesh Kanojiya a/w Raj K. Awasthi for Respondent No. 5.

¶13

Adv. Nitesh Acharya a/w Ravi Kant Purohit i/b Anil Wagh for Intervenor Applicants.

¶14

——————

¶15

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : September 27, 2024.

¶16

P. C. :

¶17

1. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 Developers submits that the transit rent in respect of existing commercial structure of the Petitioner has been deposited with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He tenders the demand draft which has been filed with the Slum

¶18

1 of 2

¶19

Harish

¶20

905-WP-7827-2023.doc

¶21

Rehabilitation Authority. The same is marked “X” for identification.

¶22

2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner as the matter has been remanded to the Deputy Collector to consider the entitlement of the Petitioner for the commercial structure, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. The only anxiety of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that if his commercial structure is demolished, the same will prejudice his rights.

¶23

3. Considering that the developer has already deposited the transit rent and will continue to do so till the adjudication of the Application of the Petitioner, the commercial structure of the Petitioner cannot be permitted to stall the re-development project.

¶24

4. The Competent Authority - MHADA is directed to decide the Application of the Petitioner for the alternate commercial structure expeditiously.

¶25

5. Till the adjudication of the Application by the concerned authority, Respondent No. 3 Developer to continue the payment of the transit rent.

¶26

6. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

7. In view of disposal of the Petition, Interim Applications taken out in the Petition does not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.

¶28

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶29

2 of 2

¶30

Harish

¶31

Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2024 12:55:13

Liladhar Vitthal Gawde v. Hariprasad Ganpat Barai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liladhar Vitthal Gawde v. Hariprasad Ganpat Barai

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vasant Dhondiba Choudhari and Ors. Vs Sadashiv Dhondiba Choudhari

Krishna Shambhu Pal Vs Poonam Krishna Pal

Shri. Pandit Laxman Jagtap Vs Shri. Giri Waghu Jagtap and Ors.

Gajanan Shankar Panshikar Vs Chintaman Ramchandra Panshikar (Since Deceased) Thru.Lrs.and Other.

Asesh Jyoti Dutta and Another vs Vadraj Cement Ltd. and 9 Others

Gajanan Shankar Panshikar Vs Chintaman Ramchandra Panshikar (Since Deceased) Thru.Lrs.and Other.