1/7 27 WP-8330.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.8330 OF 2021

Raja Ramcharan Ram Rao

..

Petitioner

Vs.

Bilquis Umar Tejabwala

(Deceased) & Ors.

..

Respondents

…

Mr. Ashok K. Goel for the petitioner.

Mr. Om Suryawanshi for respondent No.5 – MCGM.

…

CORAM

: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED

: 01^ST DECEMBER, 2021.

P.C:-

1.

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, the plaintiff

in L.C. Suit No.4896 of 2012 being aggrieved by order passed

by the Ad-hoc Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai on 23/09/2021

rejecting the Chamber Summons No.271 of 2021.

2.

The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit seeking for the

following releifs:

AJN

JAYARAJAN

ANJAKULATH

NAIR

Digitally signed by

JAYARAJAN

ANJAKULATH NAIR

Date: 2021.12.04

17:49:15 +0530

2/7 27 WP-8330.21.odt

“(a)

This Hon'ble Court be pleased to

declare that the LAND admeasuring 1113.71

square meter in C.S. No. 846 G South Lower

Parel Division of Mumbai City has not been

sold in the Auction held by BMC, the

Defendant No. 5 on 10/9/1984. Set aside the

order.

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare

that the Auction Sale Certificate dated

3/12/1984 submitted by Defendant No. 1

Bilkhis and all consequential documents

executed in pursuance to aforesaid Sale

certificate in favour of Defendant No. 1 No. 2

Deepak Rao proprietor Accoonor Associate

and Defendant No.3 M/s. Tanishq Nirman is

illegal and further submission of the same

before the official Respondents Defendant No.

8 and Defendant No. 9 in the mutation

proceedings is also illegal, nonest, null and

void.

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare

that the mutation orders of the Defendant No. 8

Superintendent Mumbai City Survey and Land

Record Officer bearing No. 443/2007 dated

23/4/2007 and No. 465/2007 dated 3/7/207 and

No. 641/009 dated 23/6/2009 and the issuance

of property cards thereafter to Defendant No.

1, Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 is

illegal, void be quashed and set aside and

cannot withstand in the eyes of law ab-initio.”

3.

Coupled with the aforesaid relief, a direction is also sought

in the suit to the Superintendent of Land Records i.e. defendant

No.8 and the District Collector, Mumbai i.e. defendant No.9 to

AJN

3/7 27 WP-8330.21.odt

restore the name of the plaintiff in the Record of Rights and

declare that he has got the right to develop the suit property as

per the existing Development Control Regulation (“DCR”) to the

exclusion of others.

4.

On the summons being issued, defendant Nos.2 to 9 filed

their written statement and contested the suit. Respondent No.1,

though served, failed to file written statement and by order dated

20/08/2019, the suit proceeded ex-parte against her.

5.

In the suit, since defendant No.1 was informed to be dead,

Chamber Summons No.409 of 2021 was taken out seeking

direction to the brother of defendant No.1, Mohammad Husain

U. Tejabwala, to disclose the date of his death and to produce the

death certificate on record. The petitioner obtained certified

copy of suit filed by respondent No.1 against M/s. Karimjee Pvt.

Ltd. to which her brother was also a defendant. The affidavit in

support of the chamber summons stated that in the month of

February, 2020, the plaintiff gained knowledge that defendant

No.1 had passed away and, therefore, it has become necessary to

bring her legal heirs on record. It was also stated that since

defendant No.1 was not representing in the suit, the matter be

proceeded ex-parte against her. It was also pleaded that the

plaintiff had issued a notice dated 10/02/2020 to the brother of

defendant No.1 seeking details of her legal