ISMAILBHAIKANGA Vs. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the original plaintiffs in L. C. Suit No. 534 of 2000 filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay. They are the trustees of a public trust known as Abdul Hussein K. Motiwala Charitable trust (for convenience, "the plaintiffs"). The respondents are the original defendants (for convenience, "the defendants"). Defendant 1 is the Maharashtra housing and Area Development Authority (for short, "mhada"). Defendant 2 is the Executive Engineer of "mhada". Defendant 3 is the Deputy Secretary, pradhikaran and defendant 4 is the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) The plaintiffs case, as is apparent from the plaint, is that they are the owner of the buildings known as "badak CHAWLS" bearing Municipal Nos. 41-B, 41-BA, 41-CD, 41-CA, 41-E, 41-F, 41-G and 41-H situate at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, bearing Cadestral Survey No. 798 of Mazgaon division and situate at E Ward of Bombay Municipal Corporation (for convenience, "the suit property").

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, defendant 4 served notice for acquisition of the suit property under section 41 (1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, "the MHADA Act"). The said notice stated that on a representation from the Mumbai Building Repairs and reconstruction Board, (for short, "the said Board") it appears to the Government of Maharashtra that in order to enable the said Board to discharge its function or to exercise its powers or to carry out its proposals and plans, it is necessary that the lands on which the suit property is situated is acquired in exercise of powers under section 41 (1) of the MHADA Act. The notice further stated that the State of Maharashtra proposed to acquire the suit property. The plaintiffs were asked to show cause, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the said notice in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, why the suit property should not be acquired. In the Schedule to the said notice, the suit property was described.