Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
Kamal Sevakram Jadhawani – Appellant
Versus
Prajakta Chandrashekhar Chaugule – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kamal Khata, J.
1) Before us there are two interconnected Writ Petitions.
2) In Writ Petition No.747 of 2024, Petitioners-Jadhawani’s seek the following substantive reliefs:
“a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the papers and files leading to granting the permission for the conversion of the scheme as per Government order dated 23/04/2013 at Exhibit ‘F’ and Conversion of the scheme as per the provisions of DCPR 2034 and approvals / sanctions / permissions / IOA / Reports / Letter of Intent / Commencement Certificate / Further Commencement Certificates / Occupation Certificate in respect to the Existing Composite Building No.1 and proposed Rehab Building No.2 and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the approval granted for Conversion of Composite Building No.1 and the approval granted for demolition of the Composite Building No.1 vide LOI dated 05/12/2019 at Exhibit ‘I’
b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the I.O.A. dated 10/02/2020 at Exhibit ‘M’ issued for Rehab Building No.1 for construction
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.
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 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 CEO/SRA has the authority to terminate a Developer under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act for delays and non-performance in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, emphasizing timely completion for public b....
The court emphasized the statutory purpose of the Slum Act as a welfare legislation and rejected the petitioners' challenge to the Section 3C declarations and notifications.
Unauthorized construction without proper permissions violates statutory laws; authorities must enforce demolition orders while compensating affected purchasers.
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
