Back
M. S. SONAK, ARIF S. DOCTOR
Gorai Nagar Maharashtra Grihanirman Vasahat Sanghatana – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Housing, Govt. of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Sonak J.) :
1. Heard Mr Avinash Jalisatgi with Ms Divya Wadekar for the petitioners, Mr Manish Upadhye, AGP for the State of Maharashtra and Mr P.G. Lad along with Ms Sayli Apte and Ms Shreya Shah for the respondent - MHADA (respondents 2 to 4). The 5th respondent was duly served. Mr Pandey had even waived service for the 5th respondent after this petition was admitted on 9th March 2004.
2. The dispute in this petition is about the allotment of a plot of land bearing City Survey No. 240 (Part) and Survey No. 25 (Part) situated Opp. Building No. 10, Old Maharashtra Grihanirman Vasahat, Gorai Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 091 ad- measuring about 1046.25 sq. mtrs. (“subject plot”) by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (“MHADA”), based allegedly on directives of the State Government issued under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations (“1982 Regulations”).
3. On 20 March 2003, the Division Bench of this Court comprised H.L. Gokhale and Smt. Ranjana Desai, JJ., directed parties to maintain the status quo. This order dated 20 March 2003 reads as follows:-
The court emphasized the necessity of transparency and adherence to established procedures in public land allotments to uphold constitutional rights.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Society – Land is a precious material resource of community and least which is required from State is transparency in its distribution.
Process of applying the pick and choose policy and making allotments at the whims and fancies of the persons in power continued in the State.
The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.
(1) Revision Petition can be re-instated if it has been withdrawn in exchange of an offer of settlement.(2) Mere possession on paper does not translate into actual possession.(3) A court-mandated all....
The State Government's communication was deemed a binding directive under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, mandating compliance by CIDCO.
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
