Disposed

Vikas Mishra and Anr. v. Managing Director City and Industrial Development and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2024WP/12778/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grants ad-interim direction to earmark commercial area in discrete premises for rehabilitation without allotment to any party. Lists connected writ petitions for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim direction to earmark commercial area for rehabilitation without allotting to any party until next hearing; listing of connected writ petitions.

Vikas Mishra and Anr. vs Managing Director City and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

54-ASWP-12778-2024-55+ (1).DOC

¶2

Ashwini

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12778 OF 2024

¶5

Vikas Mishra & Anr …Petitioners Versus Managing Director City and Industrial ...Respondents Development & Ors

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12896 OF 2024

¶8

Rajesh Gaikwad & Ors ...Petitioners Versus

¶9

Managing Director City and Industrial ...Respondents Development & Ors

¶10

Mr Pankaj Savant, Senior Advocate , with Aliabbas Delhiwala, Anirudh Bhalwal & Sabir Merchant, i/b Vyas & Bhalwal, for the Petitioners in both matters.

¶11

Mr Tejesh Dande , for the Respondent-Corporation in both matters. Mr AA Alaspurkar, AGP , for the Respondent-State.

¶12

ASHWINI H GAJAKOSH

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHWINI H GAJAKOSH Date: 2024.09.20 10:38:47 +0530

¶14

Mr Nitesh Rangari , i/b Rohit Sakhadeo, for Respondent No. 1 in WP/12896/2024.

¶15

Mr Ravindra S Pachundkar , for Respondent No. 2 in WP/12778/2024.

¶16

Ms SS Bhende, AGP , for Respondent No. 5-State.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

54-ASWP-12778-2024-55+ (1).DOC

¶19

CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ DATED: 18th September 2024

¶20

PC:-

¶21

Mr Nitesh Gangare, learned Counsel, appears for CIDCO in connected Writ Petition No.12896 of 2024, but he says that he has no instructions to appear in this Writ Petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 12778 of 2024.

¶22

Even in the connected Writ Petition, Mr Nitesh Gangare seeks an adjournment that senior is unavailable.

¶23

By way of an ad-interim relief, the Respondents are directed to earmark a commercial area of 615 sq ft in each of the Petitions and not allot the same to any party until the next date.

¶24

If CIDCO and other Respondents wish to file a Reply, they should file and serve such a Reply on or before 27 September 2024.

¶25

The above ad-interim relief is granted because the learned Counsel for CIDCO cannot make any statement. Mr Sawant learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners were occupying commercial premises, and what is offered by way of rehabilitation is only residential premises. He submitted that if, in the meantime, all commercial premises are disposed of, grave prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

54-ASWP-12778-2024-55+ (1).DOC

¶28

After this order was dictated, Mr Tejas Dande stated that he had instructions to appear on behalf of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. At his request, list Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 25741 of 2024 along with these Petitions.

¶29

Mr Sawant states that there is yet another connected Writ Petition involving the same issue i.e. Writ Petition (ST) No. 16589 of 2024. Even this matter should be listed along with these matters.

¶30

List all these matters on 3rd October 2024.

¶31

(Kamal Khata, J)

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Vikas Mishra and Anr. v. Managing Director City and Industrial Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Mishra and Anr. v. Managing Director City and Industrial Development 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Gangaram Jadhav vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Nivasti Tvisa Co. Op Hsg Soc Ltd. vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shantaram Sukhdeo Thakare vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rameshlal a Julka (Huf) vs Managing Director City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Rajesh Gaikwad and Ors. vs Managing Director City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Rajaram Jainandan Yadav vs the Municipal Commissioner