Disposed¶24

Umashankar Mishra v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2025WP/2306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transit rent quantification; disputed questions of fact; limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India; relegation to Civil Court alternate remedy; evidence to be led before Civil Court; Respondent No.7; Respondent Nos. 2 to 5-MHADA; Respondent No.6-BMC; State of Maharashtra; connected Bombay High Court writ petitions nos. 2306, 2309 and 2305 of 2024; disposed of on 7th April 2025 by A.S. Gadari and Kamal Khata, JJ.; liberty to settle amicably out of Court.

What did the court decide?

Substantive alternate remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction reserved in favour of the Petitioners; Petitions disposed of; Petitioner(s) and Respondent No.7 at liberty to settle their disputes amicably out of Court. ¶24

Umashankar Mishra vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can adjudicate the disputed questions of fact raised by the Petitioners, including the quantification of transit rent payable by Respondent No.7.

¶23

Court's answer

Disputed questions of facts and/or quantification of rent and other related declarations cannot be adjudicated by the Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioners were relegated to the alternate remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the said issues by lending evidence in support of their case.

¶23

Key takeaways

Respondent No.7 was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation as per the provisions of law, while the expectations and demands of the Petitioner(s) were far more and unending.obiter¶23
The Petitions were disposed of with the substantive alternate remedy reserved in favour of the Petitioners.ratio¶24
The Petitioner(s) and Respondent No.7 are at liberty to have a dialogue to settle their disputes amicably out of the Court.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ.), 7th April 2025 — Writ Petition No. 2306 of 2024 (Umashankar Mishra, since deceased through legal heir Akhilesh Umashankar Mishra), WITH Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2024 (Nanda Sharad Satpute, since deceased through legal heirs Sharad Ganpatrao Satpute & Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 2305 of 2024 (Ashok Bhagchandani), v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Petitioners' grievances against Respondent No.7 involved disputed questions of fact, including quantification of transit rent. Holding that such disputed questions of fact, quantification of rent and related declarations cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Division Bench relegated the Petitioners to the alternate remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, to lend evidence in support of their case. The substantive alternate remedy was reserved in favour of the Petitioners and the Petitions were disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioners and Respondent No.7 to settle their disputes amicably out of Court.

¶1

dtg 16- Wp-2306-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2306 OF 2024

¶5

Umashankar Mishra

¶6

(Since deceased through legal heirs) Akhilesh Umashankar Mishra … Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State Of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 2309 OF 2024

¶11

Nanda Sharad Satpute (Since deceased through legal heirs) Sharad Ganpatrao Satpute & Ors. … Petitioners

¶12

V/s. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 2305 OF 2024 Ashok Bhagchandani … Petitioner V/s. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶16

Mr. Shailendra S.Kantekar for Petitioner/s in all Petitions. Mr. Milind More, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1-State in WP/2306/2024. Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr. Prashant Kamble, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State in WP/2309/2024.

¶17

Mr. Atul Vanarse, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State in WP/2305/2024. Mr. P.G. Lad a/w Ms. Sayli Apte and Ms. Shreya Shah for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5-MHADA.

¶18

Ms. S.V. Tondwalkar i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent No.6-BMC. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prerak Sharma and Mr. Farhan Shaikh i/b Mr. Prerak Sharma for Respondent No.7.

¶19

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 7^th April 2025.

¶20

1/2

¶21

dtg 16- Wp-2306-2024.doc

¶22

P.C. :

¶23

Though, the Respondent No.7 is ready and willing to perform his part of obligation as per the provisions of law, the expectations and demands of Petitioner(s) are far more and unending. The Petitioner(s) are also raising various disputed questions of fact including the issue of quantification of the transit rent to be paid to them by the Respondent No.7. We cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of facts and/or quantification of their rent and other related declarations in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We therefore deem it appropriate to relegate the Petitioners to avail the alternate remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of said issues, by lending evidence in support of their case.

¶24

1.1) In view of above, by reserving the said substantive alternate remedy in favour of the Petitioner(s), Petitions are disposed off.

¶25

Though, we have disposed off the Petitions, the Petitioner(s) and Respondent No.7 are at liberty to have a dialogue to settle their disputes amicably out of the Court.

¶26

( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶27

2/2

Umashankar Mishra v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umashankar Mishra v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hansraj Hariram Kothari Property (Huf) vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada)

Mushahid Rahimuddin Shaikh vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shree Swastik Tenants Association vs the Vice President, Mhada and Ors.

Shaikh Zubair Abdul Jabbar and Anr. vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Anr.

Nikhil Margi vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Ashok Bhagchandani vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.