Single judge disposed of writ petition challenging Appellate Authority order requiring legal heirship certificate. Court held no interference necessary pending grant of certificate or declaration decree.
Proceedings remitted to competent Authority for disposal after legal heirship certificate granted or decree declared.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
34-wp274-2024.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.274 OF 2024
Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2024.04.10 14:22:50 +0530
Amit Karim Shaikh & Ors.… Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.… Respondents
Mr. Sameer Mhatre for the petitioners.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 to 5/State.
Mr. Ashwin S. Tripathi for respondent No.7.
CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED:APRIL 10, 2024
P.C.:
1.The petitioners are challenging order passed by the Appellate
Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 thereby
directing the petitioners to obtain legal heirship certificate and
permitting petitioners to approached the concerned Authority to
add their names in place of deceased eligible beneficiary.
2.It is undisputed that the predecessor of the petitioners along
with respondent No.7 were occupying the property in dispute.
However, there is dispute amongst the legal representatives of the
predecessor of the petitioners. Therefore, the Authorities under the
Act directed legal representatives to obtain a declaration in the
1
34-wp274-2024.doc
form of legal heirship certificate from the Competent Authority
and place such declaration before the Authority to add their names
as eligible persons.
3.According to respondent No.7, the petitioners are not legal
representatives of his predecessor-in-title who was occupying the
property in dispute. However, such issue will have to be decided
either by the Civil Court or the Competent Authority.
4.In my opinion, the dispute is essentially amongst the legal
representatives of the predecessor of the petitioners, unless such
declaration recognizing their rights as legal representatives is
granted, no individual legal representative of the petitioner can
claim right in relation to the extent of property held by the
predecessor of the petitioners. Hence, subject to the decision of
S.C. Suit No.753 of 2023 and the legal heirship certificate granted
by the Competent Authority, there is no interference necessary.
5.Hence, in case the petitioners obtain a legal heirship
certificate or gets a decree of declaration, whichever is earlier, the
Competent Authority shall pass appropriate orders in relation to
the petitioners’ application.
6.With this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference under the writ petition is necessary for transfer of eligible beneficiary names to petitioners amidst dispute among legal representatives.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Karim Shaikh & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondent No.7
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court