Writ Petition No. 928 of 2010. Case: Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society, Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 928 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Adv. and For Respondents: Ms. Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Sandeep Marne for Respondent No. 5 |
| Judges | A.M. Khanwilkar and N.M. Jamdar, JJ. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 - Rules 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2012 (3) AMR 940 |
| Judgement Date | February 24, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
This is second round of litigation by the petitioners herein. In this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that direction be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith cancel and/or revoke the impugned order-cum-letter dated 7th December, 2009 Exhibit `Z'. Petitioners have further prayed for directions against respondent No. 2 to consider and decide proposal submitted by the petitioners for allotment of plot of land at Bandra (East), Kherwadi, Taluka Andheri, District Mumbai Suburban.
-
By the communication dated 7th December, 2009 Exhibit `Z', the Under Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department informed the Collector that the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division has opined that out of seven named members of the respondent No. 5 Society, only two were found to be eligible for membership as per the conditions specified in Government Resolution (GR) dated 25th May, 2007. After excluding said five persons, only eight members of respondent No. 5 were eligible as per the norms in GR dated 25th May, 2007 and the Society could add new members by following procedure specified in Condition No. 2 of Government Memorandum dated 10th April, 2008.
-
In the first round of Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 2185 of 2008, the petitioners herein had challenged the Letter of Intent dated 16th January, 2003 issued in favor of proposed Society formed by Dr. C.N. Shenoy and 10 others as well as the allotment of plot made in favor of respondent No. 5 Society dated 10th April, 2008. The said letter of allotment refers to names of 13 persons approved to be members of the respondent No. 5 Society. When the said Writ Petition was taken up for hearing on 23rd March, 2009, the only grievance made by the petitioners was that persons who were not eligible for membership of the respondent No. 5 Society on account of their income being higher than the income prescribed under the Scheme have been made members of the respondent No. 5 Society. No other grievance was made before the Division Bench of this Court as can be discerned from the order dated 23rd March, 2009. In the context of the said grievance, the Petition came to be disposed of - as the State Authorities informed the Court that the matter will be placed before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, who shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties. The said order reads thus:
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Government dated 10th April, 2008 making allotments of plots to certain persons. According to the petitioner, they are not eligible as their income is higher than the prescribed income under the scheme. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the order passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department shall be placed before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra who should hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders.
-
In view of the statement made, nothing survives in this petition and the same is disposed of. The Chief Secretary may examine the matter and pass the order expeditiously. Until passing of the order by the Chief Secretary, status-quo as of today shall continued.
-
After the said decision, the matter was considered by the Chief Secretary, who, by a detailed order dated 7th November, 2009 dealt with the said grievance made by the petitioners. Notably, even before the Chief Secretary, the only grievance made was about the eligibility of members of respondent No. 5 Society.
-
Be that as it may, considering the fact that five members were already held to be ineligible, the respondent No. 5 moved proposal before the State Authorities for allowing them to add new members. In the first proposal, the Society asked for permission to add four new members and in the second proposal, had asked for permission to add two more members. Both these proposals were duly considered and accepted by the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial