Bombay High CourtWP/1832/2016dismissedrule discharged

Shri. Pramod Motilal Parekar v. Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority Thr Chief Executive Officer, Nagpur

2016-04-04Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

0404wp1832.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1832/2016 Shri Pramod Motilal Parekar ...Versus...

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, through its Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board, Nagpur through its Chief Executive Officer/President, Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 04.04.2016 By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to execute the sale-deed of the tenement by exercising the powers under the provisions of the MHADA (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1981 and the provisions of the Act of 1976. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent to refund the amount paid in excess, to the extent of Rs.1,90,903/-. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, we find that there is a dispute in regard to the amount that is liable to be paid by the petitioner to the Housing Development Board. The Board is demanding more amount from the petitioner before execution of the sale-deed, whereas it is the case of the petitioner

0404wp1832.16.odt that the petitioner has paid the entire dues. The issue involved in this petition cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It would be necessary for the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings as permissible in law for seeking the relief, as sought in the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar