Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
Vimalnath Shelters Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kamal Khata, J.
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties heard finally at the admission stage.
2) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging Notice dated 19th May, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 3-MBR&RB and the Order dated 24th July, 2024 passed by Respondent No. 5-MHADA that was followed by the Notice dated 30th July, 2024 issued by Respondent No.3. Additionally, the Petitioners also challenge the constitutional validity of Section 79-A of Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA), as arbitrary and violative of their fundamental and constitutional rights and consequently seek its striking off. Brief facts:
3) The Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the property consisting of freehold land bearing Cadastral Survey No.1/291 and 2/291 (Lower Parel Division) admeasuring 2383 square yards and 135 square yards aggregating to 2518 square yards equivalent to 2105.35 square meters or thereabout situated at erstwhile Fergusson Road and now known as Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Worli Naka, Mumbai and a chawl constructed thereon known as ‘Shoorji Vallabhdas Chawl’. It is a cessed building having 12 commer
The court ruled that notices issued under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act are invalid if the building is not officially declared dangerous, violating due process and natural justice.
The court held that notices issued under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act were invalid due to lack of proper declaration of the building as dangerous and failure to follow procedural requirements.
Tenants of non-cessed buildings cannot resist eviction under Maharashtra Housing Act based on perceived rights for larger accommodations unless provided by law.
Issuance of notices under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing Act without jurisdiction constitutes a misuse of powers, emphasizing statutory compliance for redevelopment decisions.
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.
Tenants retain their rights to occupy and reconstruct a demolished tenanted building, and property owners have legal obligations to redevelop or reconstruct under municipal law, which the MCGM is emp....
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 ....
Land Acquisition - Compulsory acquisition of land - Quash of order – Acquiescence would be a conduct where a party is sitting by when another is invading his rights and acquiescence must be such as t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirements of Section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, and the need to comply with the terms and con....
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
