Disposed

Naaz Asif Shaikh and Ors. v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Governement and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2024WP/13884/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Slum dwellers alleged removal from rehab tenements without AGRC hearing. Court noted petitioners could not show entitlement documents; matter adjourned for detailed hearing with replies. No coercive action against petitioner whose name appears in Certified Annexure-II.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against Petitioner No. 38 (Flat No. 718); matter listed for hearing on 11 November 2024 with replies to be filed.

Naaz Asif Shaikh and Ors. vs the Apex Grievance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904.WP13884.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 13884 OF 2024

¶4

Smt. Naaz Asif Shaikh and Others

¶5

...Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Others.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. A.N. Giri a/w. Mr. Sagar Balavia, Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1-AGRC. Mr. Vishwanath Patil a/w. Mr. Akshay Naidu, Advocate for Respondent No.5SRA.

¶10

Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent No. 6-State.

¶11

——————

¶12

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : October 8, 2024.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1. The matter was circulated urgently by stating that eligible slum dwellers are being removed from their rehab tenements without any hearing given to them.

¶15

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the SRA would submit that a survey was conducted by the SRA and it was found that the rehab tenements are being occupied by non-eligible slum dwellers. He submits that the complaint in that regard was received by the SRA

¶16

from the eligible slum dwellers which led to the issuance of notices under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

Talwalkar

¶19

904.WP13884.2024.doc

¶20

Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

¶21

3. Upon query by this Court as to whether there is any document in order to show the entitlement of the Petitioners to the rehab components, learned Counsel for the Petitioners is unable to point out a single document. His only contention is that before passing of the order, the Petitioners were not heard by the AGRC.

¶22

4. The Petition therefore has to be heard at length. List on 11^th November 2024 under the caption “Circulation”.

¶23

5. Reply to be filed before the next date.

¶24

6. Considering that the order of AGRC notes that name of Petitioner No. 38 Vahida Irfan Shaikh is reflected in the Certified Annexure-II, no coercive action be taken as regards Petitioner No. 38 (Flat No. 718).

¶25

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶26

ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Digitally signed byARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date: 2024.10.15 10:41:39 +0530

¶27

2 of 2

¶28

Talwalkar

Naaz Asif Shaikh and Ors. v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Governement and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naaz Asif Shaikh and Ors. v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Governement and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Ghanshamdas Kukreja vs Hiralal Ghanshamdas Kukreja

Kamakshi Enterprises, a Registered Partnership Firm vs Shreenathji Developers Private Limited

Karam Enterprise vs Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Dilip Estate and Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. vs Laxmikant Banwarilal Makharia

Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd. vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Shivmati Builders and Ors. vs Chairmant/Secretary Shivmati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.