MUNIRAJ R.KURMI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. These appeal arise out of an Order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai whereby Writ Petition (L) No. 2959 of 2014 and W.P.(L) No. 2994 of 2014 have been dismissed. Also under challenge is an Order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the High Court dismissing Review Petitions (L) No. 95 of 2014 and 96 of 2014.

(2.) Writ Petitions No. 2959 and 2994 of 2014 were filed by the appellants herein before the High Court to challenge an Order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, MHADA under Section 95 A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 whereby the writ petitioners had been asked to vacate the premises in their occupation and shift to alternative accommodation being made available by the Co -operative Housing Society to facilitate re -development of the area in question. The challenge primarily rested on the applicability of Section 95A and the powers of the Executive Engineer to issue a direction like the one impugned in the writ petitions. The High Court examined the matter and found that there was no legal or other infirmity in the order passed by the Executive Engineer which had the sanction of law. Writ petitions were accordingly dismissed by the High Court by a common order dated 27.11.2014 assailed in the present appeals as already noticed earlier.

(3.) When the matters came up before us initially on 23.07.2015, several contentions were urged by learned counsel for the appellants, some of which even suggested that the entire process of allotment of additional land, grant of F.S.I. and related issues were in breach of the statutory provisions besides being prejudicial to public interest inasmuch as the authorities had not protected public interest while extending benefits which would enrich the builder engaged by the society for redevelopment. The contentions urged in that regard were noticed by us and directions for filing of additional affidavits and furnishing of additional information relevant to the questions urged at the Bar issued. For facility of reference, we may at this stage extract the Order passed by us on 23.07.2015: -