A.H. Wadia Trust And 4 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 433 Bom

                       Yugandhara Patil

                                                                                    15-WP-493-2017.doc

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 493 OF 2017
                                                       WITH
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2284 OF 2018


                       A.H. Wadia Trust and Others                            ... Petitioners
                             Versus
YUGANDHARA
                       State of Maharashtra and Ors.                          ... Respondents
SHARAD
PATIL
Digitally signed by
                                                      ******

YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, Mr. Neil Patel and Mr.Sameer Panwalkar i/by Date: 2023.01.12 17:48:04 +0530 M/s. LR and Associates for the Petitioner in both Writ Petitions

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP, State for the Respondent Nos.1,4 and in WP No. 493/2017

Mr.Kedar Dighe,AGP, State for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 8 in WP 2284/2018.

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad Reddy, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP 493/2017 -SRA.

Mr.Vijay Patil, for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in WP/2284/2018.

Mr. V.T. Dubey, for the Respondent No.4 in WP/2284/2018.

******

CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND M.M.SATHAYE JJ.

                                                           DATE    : 11th JANUARY, 2023
                       P.C. :-

1. Learned counsel for Petitioners in both these petitions seeks

time to consider the Judgment of this Court delivered on 9 th January

1 /3

Yugandhara Patil

15-WP-493-2017.doc

2023 in case of A.H. Wadia Trust and Others Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 1347 of 2019.

According to the learned counsel for Respondents, the issues

involved in both these Petitions are already concluded in the said

Judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners to make statement before

this Court whether these issues are concluded in the said Judgment

or not. If such statement is not made by learned counsel, this Court

will decide whether these issues are concluded or not.

3. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for SRA seeks one week time to

place on record the correspondence between the Petitioners and SRA

by which the SRA had called upon Petitioners to develop the writ

property under the provisions of Section 33(10) of the DC

Regulations, 1991. Time is granted as prayed.

4. Petitioner to consider this issue also and to make a statement

whether such opportunity was given to the Petitioner to develop the

writ property under the provisions of Section 33(10) of the DC

Regulations, 1991.

2 /3

Yugandhara Patil

15-WP-493-2017.doc

5. Place the matter on board for 'Directions' on 25 th January

2023.

[M.M.SATHAYE,J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]

3 /3