Back
G. S. PATEL, NEELA GOKHALE
Harish Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Housing And Aera Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
G.S.PATEL J. - Heard. Since there are Affidavits in Reply and Rejoinders, Rule, by consent returnable forthwith.
2. The two Petitioners seek protection in respect of two premises. Specifically, the relief sought is directed against an order dtd. 5/2/2021 by the 1st and 2nd Respondent, respectively the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA") and its vice president or CEO. The 1st Petitioner ("Gandhi") claims to be the owner of Shop No. C-05. The 2nd Petitioner claims to be the owner of Shop No. C-01. Gandhi's claimed shop C-05 has already been demolished. Both shops are said to be in Building No. 20-C.
3. MHADA owns a large tract of land of over 2,22,000 sq mtr at Mouje Poisar, Taluka Borivali, known as Samata Nagar. This is referred to in some of the filings as 'the larger property'. Between 1980 and 1985, MHADA constructed some 166 buildings on this larger property and periodically allotted residential premises in these buildings to various persons under different schemes. Over time, as many as 74 cooperative societies came to be formed. There were six other entities which were government or semi-government authorities. Of these 74 cooperative soci
The court established that unauthorized constructions lacking necessary permissions are illegal, and parties claiming rights through such constructions cannot assert legal entitlements, especially wh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of parties to comply with court directions and the serious consequences for non-compliance.
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
The court affirmed that removed Developers retain locus to challenge demolition actions, emphasizing the need for transparency and legality in the SRA and BMC's conduct.
The court ruled that the actions of the SRA and BMC in demolishing the building were unlawful and mala fide, affirming the Petitioners' rights to the earmarked free sale area despite their removal as....
Free sale rights under slum rehabilitation schemes are contingent upon fulfilling obligations; failure to do so results in loss of rights, and actions by authorities must adhere to legal standards.
Unauthorized construction without proper permissions violates statutory laws; authorities must enforce demolition orders while compensating affected purchasers.
The court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding land area and project delays are not suitable for Writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for timely completion of slum rehabilitation projec....
The court ruled that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the government's redevelopment decision and failed to secure necessary consents from newly formed societies, thus dismissing the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
