Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Alternate Plot — No Legal Right to Substitution Established. Co-operative society's claim for alternate land rejected as original allotment remained intact, no statutory right under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Nyaya Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and its member Chandru Tolani, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the action of non-allotment of a plot from government layouts at Village Versova, Andheri, and an order dated 14/15.10.1992, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot and grant physical possession of a suitable plot of land (minimum 1145 sq. metres) in lieu of Plot No.386A, T.P.S. III, Borivali, which had been allotted to the first petitioner in February 1984. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to an alternate plot from the government layouts at Versova. The court, comprising R.M. Lodha and J.P. Devadhar, JJ., examined the reliefs sought and found that the original allotment of Plot No.386A at Borivali had not been cancelled or withdrawn. The court held that without cancellation of the original allotment, the petitioners had no legal right to demand an alternate plot. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to establish any enforceable right under Article 226. The judgment was delivered on 5th August 2005.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Right to Alternate Plot - Petitioners sought writ of mandamus for allotment of alternate plot from government layouts - Court held that no legal right exists for substitution of plot when original allotment is not cancelled or withdrawn - Writ petition dismissed as petitioners failed to establish any enforceable right (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners have a legal right to demand allotment of an alternate plot of land from the government layouts at Versova in lieu of the plot already allotted to them at Borivali.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
  • no right to alternate plot without cancellation of original allotment
  • co-operative society's rights limited to allotted plot
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 250

Writ Petition No.2028 of 1992

2005-08-05

R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar

Mr.Sagar J. Kadam i/b. S. Mohomedbhai & Co. for the petitioners; Mr.Niranjan Pandit, AGP for the respondents

Nyaya Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Chandru Tolani

State of Maharashtra and Additional Collector, Bombay Suburban District

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking allotment of alternate plot of land.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought writ of certiorari to quash non-allotment action and order dated 14/15.10.1992, and writ of mandamus directing allotment of alternate plot of minimum 1145 sq. metres from government layouts at Versova or vicinity.

Filing Reason

Petitioners claimed entitlement to alternate plot in lieu of Plot No.386A, T.P.S. III, Borivali allotted in February 1984.

Issues

Whether the petitioners have a legal right to demand allotment of an alternate plot of land from the government layouts at Versova in lieu of the plot already allotted to them at Borivali.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they are entitled to an alternate plot from government layouts at Versova. Respondents opposed the petition, contending no legal right exists.

Ratio Decidendi

Without cancellation or withdrawal of the original allotment of Plot No.386A at Borivali, the petitioners have no legal right to demand an alternate plot. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a non-existent right.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners have filed this writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs : The first petitioner was allotted Plot No.386A of T.P.S. III, Borivali in February, 1984.

Procedural History

Writ Petition No.2028 of 1992 filed in Bombay High Court under Article 226. Heard and dismissed on 5th August 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Alternate Plot — No Legal Right to Substitution Established. Co-operative society's claim for alternate land rejected as original allotment remained intact, no statutory right under Article 226 of C...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Release of Academic Documents to Law Graduate in Manav Bharti University Case -- Student's Career Prejudice Addressed Despite University's Record Discrepancies