Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DAILYLAW 1694 (BOM)

SHRI. BORKAR RAMDAS MADANE AND ORS v. VIKASHAK MUNDRA AND ORS

WP/8932/2011 · 2026-09-08

body2011

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

4-WP-8932-2011.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8932 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2241 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8932 OF 2011 Shri Borkar Ramdas Madane and Ors. … Petitioners /Applicants Versus Vikashak Mundra and Ors. … Respondents *** None for the Petitioners. Dr. Dhruti Kapadia for the Respondent/State. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. On 17.08.2026, following order was passed: “1. The petition is filed challenging order dated 20.10.2011 passed by Administrator and Divisional Commissioner Division Konkan Division, Mumbai, dismissing appeal filed by the Petitioners under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas ( IC& R) Act, 1971 ('the Said Act' for short). It was directed that after giving notice of 7 days, the action under eviction order dated 21.07.2011 be taken subject to decision of the High Power Committee. 2. Record indicates that while admitting the petition on 22.11.2011, it is already recorded that the notices of eviction/demolition are implemented; however, the proceedings before High Power Committee was pending. Therefore, for the purpose of interim relief, liberty was given to the Petitioners to file separate civil application. Husen 1 HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2026.09.08 20:21:47 +0530 4-WP-8932-2011.doc 3. Perusal of the only pending civil application indicates that no interim relief is granted therein. The order of eviction/ demolition under Section 33/38 of the said Act is of July 2011. 4. In view of long lapse of time during pendency of the petition, it is necessary for the petitioners to first point out what is the present stage of premises in question and whether anything survives. For the said purpose, stand over to 24.08.2026 as an opportunity to the Petitioners. 5. To be listed 'for dismissal.'” 2. On 01.09.2026, following order was passed: “1. Under order dated 17.08.2026, the matter was directed to be listed for dismissal on 24.08.2026. However, on 24.08.2026, since this Court was not available (due to Division Bench work), the matter is adjourned for today. 2. In that view of the matter, to give one more opportunity to the Petitioner, stand over to 08.09.2026. To be listed 'for dismissal'. 3. Today, the matter is listed for dismissal. However, nobody is appearing for the Petitioners. It appears that the Petitioners are not interested to proceed with the petition. Writ petition along with pending civil application are therefore dismissed for non prosecution. Interim/ad- interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 4. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Husen 2