Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Pramod Vithal Salgaonkar, the Chief Promoter of Shree Dattaguru CHS (Prop), and another petitioner, challenging resolutions of the Improvement Committee dated 10 August 2009 and the Municipal Corporation dated 12 August 2009, a letter of intent dated 2 September 2009 issued to the Twelfth Respondent (Mazgaon Dholkawala Cooperative Housing Society), a revised Annexure-II certifying the list of eligible occupants, and a report of the Deputy Chief Engineer dated 1 April 2009. The petitioners are unauthorized occupants (encroachers) residing on immovable property known as 'Sethana Compound' bearing C.S. 1/367 of Mazgaon Division. The land was leased to the Municipal Corporation by the State Government. There are 54 municipal tenants and 29 encroachers on the land. On 8 May 2000, the unauthorized occupants submitted a proposal for redevelopment under DCR 33(7) in the name of Chamunda Cooperative Housing Society (proposed) through a developer, Shankala Associates. The name of the First Petitioner was later changed to Shri Dattaguru Cooperative Housing Society. The court noted that guidelines framed by the Government require more than 70% of eligible municipal tenants to furnish written consent for a scheme. The petitioners, being unauthorized occupants, have no locus standi to challenge the approval granted to the cooperative society of municipal tenants. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners are encroachers and not eligible tenants, and thus cannot maintain the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Locus Standi - Unauthorized Occupants - Challenge to Redevelopment Approval - Unauthorized occupants have no legal right to challenge the approval granted to a cooperative society of municipal tenants for redevelopment under DCR 33(7) - The petition was dismissed as the petitioners were encroachers and not eligible tenants (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether unauthorized occupants have locus standi to challenge the approval granted for redevelopment of municipal land under DCR 33(7) to a cooperative society of municipal tenants.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The court held that the petitioners, being unauthorized occupants, have no locus standi to challenge the approval granted to the cooperative society of municipal tenants for redevelopment under DCR 33(7).
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Unauthorized occupants
- Municipal tenants
- Redevelopment
- Development Control Regulation 33(7)
- Cooperative Housing Society
- Writ petition maintainability
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (11) 26
WRIT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2010
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ANOOP V. MOHTA
Mr. Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni with Ms. Shirin Shaikh i/by M/s. Deepak ChitnisChiparikar and Co. for the Petitioners, Mr. Milind V. More, AGP for Respondent No.1, Mr. A.Y Sakhare, Sr. Advocate with Ms. V.S. Gharpure for Respondent Nos. 2 to 9, Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.G. Aradwad for Respondent No. 10, Mr. R.A. Dada, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V. Merchant i/by M/s. Kishore Thakordas & Co. for Respondent No.11, Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Kapadia i/by Mr. Deepak J. Bhatia for Respondent No. 12, Mr. A.Y. Bookwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Shree Dattaguru Coop. Housing Society (Proposed)
Pramod Vithal Salgaonkar, Chief Promoter of Shree Dattaguru CHS (Prop) & Anr.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging resolutions, letter of intent, revised annexure, and report related to redevelopment approval under DCR 33(7).
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the resolutions, letter of intent, revised annexure, and report, and to set aside the approval granted for redevelopment.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, being unauthorized occupants, claimed that the approval for redevelopment was wrongly granted to a cooperative society of municipal tenants.
Issues
Whether unauthorized occupants have locus standi to challenge the redevelopment approval granted to a cooperative society of municipal tenants under DCR 33(7).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are unauthorized occupants and have a right to be considered in the redevelopment scheme.
Respondents contended that the petitioners are encroachers and have no locus standi to challenge the approval.
Ratio Decidendi
Unauthorized occupants (encroachers) have no legal right to challenge the approval for redevelopment of municipal land granted to a cooperative society of eligible municipal tenants under DCR 33(7). Such persons lack locus standi to maintain a writ petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The First Petitioner is a proposed society of unauthorized occupants residing on immovable property known as 'Sethana Compound' bearing C.S. 1/367 of Mazgaon Division.
The substance of the challenge is to an approval which has been granted for a proposed redevelopment to the Mazgaon Dholkawala Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed), the Twelfth Respondent, under Development Control Regulation 33(7).
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2010 challenging various decisions of the Municipal Corporation and the Improvement Committee regarding redevelopment approval. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 25 November 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991: 33(7)
