TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside judgment, orders retrial, directs costs payment.</h1> <h3>Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr. Versus Mahesh Jaggumal Sacchani and Ors.</h3> The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999 were quashed and set aside. The trial Court was directed to decide ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999.2. Ownership and partition of the suit land.3. Validity of sale-deeds dated 11-10-1990 and 15-10-1990.4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.5. Service of statutory notices.6. Allegations of fraud and collusion.7. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.8. Availability of alternate remedy.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Judgment and Decree:The petitioner-MHADA questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999, which directed the petitioner to release 40% of the total surplus land in light of the Circular dated 23-8-1988 of the State Government.2. Ownership and Partition of the Suit Land:The suit land was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and vested in the State Government. The original plaintiff, Ramji, claimed ownership through partition among his brothers, but no evidence of such partition was provided. The Civil Court failed to ascertain whether Gomaji or Ramji was the real owner of the suit land.3. Validity of Sale-Deeds:The sale-deeds dated 11-10-1990 and 15-10-1990 executed by Ramji were declared illegal as the land had already vested in the State Government by notification dated 26-10-1989. The transactions were null and void under Section 10(4) of the Ceiling Act.4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:The Civil Court's jurisdiction was challenged based on Section 33 of the Ceiling Act and Section 177 of the MHADA Act, which bar the Civil Court from entertaining such suits. The trial Court failed to address its jurisdiction before passing the judgment and decree.5. Service of Statutory Notices:The suit was liable to be dismissed due to the absence of statutory notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 173 of the MHADA Act. The Civil Court overlooked this procedural requirement.6. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion:A joint pursis (Ex. 56) was filed without the consent of the Government Pleader, and the evidence recorded was fraudulent. The trial Court acted on this pursis and passed the judgment and decree on the same day, indicating collusion and fraud. The Supreme Court's precedents on fraud and collusion were cited to support this finding.7. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition:The delay of seven years in filing the writ petition was explained by the petitioners through various correspondences and affidavits. The Court found the explanation satisfactory and rejected the argument of delay and laches.8. Availability of Alternate Remedy:The argument that the petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The Court held that in cases of fraud and collusion, the High Court has the jurisdiction to set aside the impugned judgment and decree under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.Conclusion:The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-10-1999 were quashed and set aside. The trial Court was directed to decide the suit afresh, ignoring the pursis (Ex. 56) and addressing all issues comprehensively. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioners within four weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
