Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75265 (BOM)

DADAR KRISHNA KUNJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND ORS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

WP/3146/2015 · 2025-12-09

Aarti A Sathe, Shri G S Kulkarni

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

502- WP-3146-15.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3146 OF 2015 Dadar Krishna Kunj CO-operative Housing Society Limited & others. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents _______ Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Seema Sarnaik Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Sachin Punde, for Petitioners. Mr. P.G.Lad a/w. Ms. Sayali Apte, for Respondent/MHADA. Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 17th December 2025 P.C. 1. Not on board. Taken on board on an application being moved on behalf of the Petitioner for speaking to the minutes of Order dated 9th December 2025. 2. In paragraph 4, the sentence beginning from “Accordingly, some procedure was followed …... with the State Government”, be deleted and be substituted with the following sentences: “ Accordingly the MHADA set into motion the procedure under Section 103B of the Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, consequent thereto an award was passed on 14th May 1992. However no further steps were taken for completion of the acquisition, as the tenants did not deposit balance amount of compensation and thus the acquisition compensation itself Mane JYOTI RAJESH MANE Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2025.12.19 11:37:10 +0530 502- WP-3146-15.DOC could not at all, be paid. Thereafter, the Petitioners proposal for deacquisition of the land and building, as moved before the MHADA was considered by MHADA and accordingly, a proposal to that effect, being proposal dated 14th February 2020 was forwarded to the State Government for its approval. The said proposal is stated to be pending with the State Government since then. ” 3. In paragraph No.7, the last line on page No.4 of the order the work ‘acquire’ be substituted with the word ‘de-acquire’. 4. In paragraph No.8, line No.9 the word “made” has been deleted and same be substituted with the word “completed”. 5. In the operative part of the order in clause 2, 4th line the word “consequential” be deleted and be substituted with the word “inconsequential”. 6. Order be corrected accordingly and made available to the parties. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Mane