Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vijay Shantaram Mandavkar and others, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging their eviction from slum premises as part of a redevelopment project. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, MHADA, BMC, and private developers. The petitioners sought to continue occupying their existing premises, but the Court noted that alternate flats, larger than their current homes, had already been constructed and allotted to them on ownership basis. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, also rejecting the prayer for extension of ad-interim relief. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohit S. Shah and Justice B.P. Colabawalla on 6 February 2015.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Alternate Accommodation - Slum Redevelopment Scheme - Petitioners challenged their eviction from existing premises but the Court found that alternate flats larger than their current premises had already been constructed and allotted to them on ownership basis - Held that there was no substance in the petition and it was dismissed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to continue in their existing premises or must accept alternate flats already constructed and allotted under a slum redevelopment scheme.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The prayer for extension of ad-interim relief was rejected.
Law Points
- Rehabilitation of slum dwellers
- alternate accommodation
- slum redevelopment scheme
- ownership basis
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 97
Writ Petition (L) No.2549 of 2014
Mohit S. Shah, C.J., B.P. Colabawalla, J.
Mr G.S. Godbole with Mr Abdul Latif N. Khatri for Petitioners; Mr R.J. Mane, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State; Mr Ravi Kadam, Sr.Counsel with Mr P.G. Lad, Ms Aparna Murlidharan for Respondent – MHADA; Mr A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel with Ms T.H. Puranik for Respondent No.9 – BMC; Mr Pravin Samdani, Sr. Counsel with Mr P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel and Mr Saket Mone i/b M/s Vidhi Partners for Respondent No.3; Me Zal Andhyarujina with Mr Kunal Dwarkadas, Ms S. Gadodia i/b M/s Kanga and Co. for Respondent Nos.5 to 8.
Vijay Shantaram Mandavkar and others
State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging eviction from slum premises under a redevelopment scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to continue occupying their existing premises and extension of ad-interim relief.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged their eviction from slum premises as part of a redevelopment project.
Previous Decisions
Ad-interim relief was operating till the date of judgment.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to continue in their existing premises despite alternate flats being constructed and allotted to them on ownership basis.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued for extension of ad-interim relief to have further recourse in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
Where alternate flats larger than the existing premises have already been constructed and allotted to the petitioners on ownership basis, there is no substance in the challenge to eviction and the petition must be dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel for petitioners prays for extension of adinterim relief, which has been operating till today, in order to have further recourse in accordance with law.
Having regard to the grounds on which we have dismissed the petition, particularly the fact that the alternate flats which are larger than the premises occupied by the petitioners are already constructed and allotted to the petitioners for their occupation on ownership basis, we see no substance in the prayer. The prayer is rejected.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2014. Ad-interim relief was granted and continued until the date of judgment. After hearing, the petition was dismissed on 6 February 2015.
