1 7.wp.4502.2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4502 OF 2023 Vinayak S/o. Mahadeo Katre .Vs. Vice President/Chief Executive Officer, MHADA, Mumbai and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr Dhruv V. Gupta, Adv. a/w. Mr Dhiraj Ailani, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr H. N. Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr D. P. Thakare, Addl.G.P for respondent No. 3 Mr S. D. Chopde, Advocate for respondent No. 4 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 04 th MARCH , 2026 . Heard. 2. In the present writ petition, a prayer is sought to issue direction to the respondent No.2 to process the wait-list in which the petitioner is at serial No.1, for allotment of tenement under the HIG Bungalow Scheme at Umri Umarkhed of AHADB, year 2002 in accordance with the allotment rules of MHADA. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar is not eligible for allotment of tenement for the reasons that he possesses immovable property. 4. It is submitted that as per Rule 9(1A) of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Estate Management, Sale, Transfer and Exchange of Tenements) 2026:BHC-NAG:3612-DB 2 7.wp.4502.2023.odt Regulations, 1981 (For short the ‘MHADA Regulation’), a person shall not be eligible to apply for any tenement in municipal area if he or his/her spouse or his/her minor children own a house or a flat or a residential plot of land or holds on a hire-purchase basis or outright sale basis or on a rental basis from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority a house or a flat or a residential plot of land in his/her name, or in the name of his/her minor children as the case may be. 5. It is submitted that since the above referred Rule makes the respondent No.4 ineligible, as without any dispute that respondent No. 4 owns a plot in the Municipal area, the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent - MHADA as the petitioner stand at Sr. No.1 in the wait-list. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent- MHADA submits that, in a complaint filed by the respondent No.4 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, raising a challenge to the claim made by the MHADA for additional charges for allotment, respondent No.4 succeeded and the District Forum has directed the MHADA not to charge the additional charges and allot the tenement at the provisional price. It is further submitted that the said order dated 06.03.2014 is under challenge in the appeal before State Commission. He further submits that the respondent No.4 owns a plot in the municipal area. 3 7.wp.4502.2023.odt 7. The learned counsel for respondent-MHADA has pointed out that till date the allotment of tenements in question has not been made because of the pending of appeal before the State Commission. 8. Mr S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for respondent No.4 is not disputing pendency of the appeal before the State Commission and the fact that respondent No.4 owns an open plot within the Municipal area. 9. In the above referred circumstances, since there is no allotment made by respondent–MHADA till date, we are of the opinion that the dispute can be resolved by directing respondent–MHADA to first consider the claim of respondent No. 4 for allotment of the tenement and as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, if respondent No. 4 is found to be ineligible under Rule 9(1A), or for any other reason, except for the reason relating to non-payment of additional charges, which issue is presently pending before the State Commission, the respondent-MHADA shall declare respondent No.4 ineligible. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner, being at Sr. No.1 in wait-list, be considered. 10. Accordingly, we pass the following order : i) The respondent–MHADA is directed to first consider the claim of respondent No.4 and in the event if he is found ineligible under Rule 9(1A) 4 7.wp.4502.2023.odt or on any other ground then, shall consider the petitioner’s claim on its own merit and if found eligible, shall proceed to allot the same in the name of the petitioner. ii) In case the petitioner is found to be not eligible, respondent -MHADA may take further steps for allotment. iii) The respondent-MHADA shall complete the above referred process within three weeks from today, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.4, if it deems fit. The Writ Petition is dispose of accordingly. No order as to costs. [RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata