Disposed

M/S. Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad Abdul Gafoor Bisti

Bombay HC16 Apr 2024IA/7758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the CEO, SRA's appellate dismissal concerning clause (5) of an order permitting respondent No.1 to complete a rehabilitation project. The Court held the Section 13(2) Authority lacks power to adjudicate the legality of the slum declaration and left those questions open for appropriate proceedings, disposing of the writ petition and interim applications without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; questions on legality of slum declaration kept open for appropriate proceedings; interim applications also disposed of; no costs.

M/S. Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abdul Samad… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18-wp-173-2022.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶5

Digitally signed bySHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2024.04.16 17:42:39 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.173 OF 2022

¶7

Abdul Samad Abdul Gafoor Bisti … Petitioner V/s. The Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors … Respondents

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7759 OF 2024

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7758 OF 2024 IN

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.173 OF 2022

¶11

M/s. Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner V/s. Abdul Samad Abdul Gafoor Bisti … Respondents

¶12

Mr. Sarosh Damania a/w Ms. Riddhi Shah i/by Mr. A. A. Maniyar, for Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for State/Respondent.

¶14

Mr. Yogesh Patil i/by Mr. Vijay Patil, for Respondent Nos.1 & 4.

¶15

Mr. Akash Loya i/by Mr. Navin Arora, for Respondent No.3 (through V.C.)

¶16

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶17

DATED : APRIL 16, 2024

18-wp-173-2022.doc

P.C.:

The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”) dismissing petitioner’s Appeal challenging clause (5) of the order dated 27 September 2019.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the original proceedings were instituted under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“said Act”) for termination of appointment of respondent No.1. The CEO, SRA by order dated 27 September 2019, permitted respondent No.1 to complete the project, subject to conditions referred in the operative part of the order. However, by clause (5) of the operative part, the first Authority clarified that the irregularities alleged by the Applicant/Society and the intervener shall also be reviewed in meeting dated 15 October 2019. Aggrieved by clause (5) of the order dated 29 September 2019, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dismissed the Appeal.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the declaration of the slum was contrary to the provisions of the said Act. According to the petitioner, several illegalities committed in relation implementation of rehabilitation scheme.

¶24

For consideration of grievance of the petitioner that, the

¶25

¶26

18-wp-173-2022.doc

¶27

declaration of slum was not in accordance with law, the petitioner needs to institute appropriate proceedings as are advised in accordance with law. The Authority exercising power under Section 13(2) of the said Act has no power to adjudicate on an issue as to whether declaration of slum was in accordance with law or not. Therefore, keeping questions raised by the petitioner open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings as are permissible in law. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶28

In view of disposal of writ petition, the interim applications stand disposed of.

¶29

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶30

M/S. Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad Abdul Gafoor Bisti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad Abdul Gafoor Bisti

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

Gunwant Ananda Shinde Vs Tejnath Pandurang Surayawanshi Spl Recovery Officer and Ors.

Bhaskar Narhar Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Abhay Dadhe and Anr.

Ankush Sakharam Kadam vs Mangesh Shankar Sasane Chairman of Obc Welfare Foundation

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

Macrotech Developers Ltd. Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Office of Principal Secretary and Ors.

Suresh Gangadhar Nevkar Deceased Throu. Legal Heirs and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer Junnar Ambergaon and Ors.