Nanda Sharad Satpute v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2025WP/2309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transit rent quantification; disputed questions of fact; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; alternate remedy before Civil Court; relegation to civil court; MHADA (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5); BMC (Respondent No.6); Respondent No.7 obligations; Bombay High Court Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; writ petitions disposed (April 2025).

What did the court decide?

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

Nanda Sharad Satpute vs State of Maharashtra through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate the disputed questions of fact raised by the Petitioners, including the quantification of the transit rent payable by Respondent No.7, and related declarations.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The Court cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of facts and/or quantification of the Petitioners' rent and other related declarations in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioners are 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

Reserving the substantive alternate remedy in favour of the Petitioners, the Petitions are disposed of.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¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions Nos. 2306, 2309 and 2305 of 2024 (Umashankar Mishra since deceased through legal heirs; Nanda Sharad Satpute since deceased through legal heirs; and Ashok Bhagchandani versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ., 7 April 2025): Petitioners raised various disputed questions of fact, including quantification of the transit rent payable by Respondent No.7. The Court held that it cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of fact, quantification of rent and other related declarations in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and relegated the Petitioners to the alternate remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to lead evidence in support of their case. Petitions disposed of reserving the substantive alternate remedy; Petitioner(s) and Respondent No.7 at liberty 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

Nanda Sharad Satpute v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Sharad Satpute v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary 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

Zeus Residency Association vs the State of Maharashtra by Principal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ,Home Dept Thru Gp

Mehul Shah vs Zeus Residency Association and 7 Ors.

Mohammed Sharfuddin Shaikh vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

The Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union through President Nawaj Khan vs Town Vending Committee - Mcgm through Its Chairperson

Hawkers Joint Action Committee through Its Member Santosh Khatavkar vs Town Vending Committe Mcgm

Ashok Bhagchandani vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.