{"id":105709,"date":"2008-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-22T16:38:26","modified_gmt":"2017-12-22T11:08:26","slug":"maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                               -1-\n\n\nHVN\n              IN    THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                   REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                                   IN\n                     SECOND APPEAL NO. 1324 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n      Maharashtra Housing and Area\n      Development Authority, established\n      under the MHADA Act, through its\n      Chief Officer, Pune Housing and Area\n      Development Board, Agarkar Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n      Pune.                            ...            Petitioners\n\n                                      Versus\n\n      P.V. Anturkar,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n      Aged 62 years, Occ.Service,\n      residing at Amu Bhuvaneshwar\n      Street, Pashan Road, Pune.               ...    Respondent\n                          \n      Mr. G.W. Mattos, A.G.P. for Petitioner.\n\n      Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for\n                         \n      Respondent.\n\n                              CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &\n                                     K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                              DATED: JULY 04, 2008<\/p>\n
      ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F.I. Rebello,J.):<\/p>\n
      .   The      learned Chief Justice has been          pleased         to<\/p>\n
      place   before     us, the following reference             for      our<\/p>\n
      consideration,      pursuant     to the order of a           learned<\/p>\n
      Judge   of this court dated 19.3.2008.            The questions<\/p>\n
      referred are as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                “(1) Whether a Review Petition under Section<\/p>\n
                114    read    with   Order XVII of the          Code      of<\/p>\n
                Civil    Procedure     1908 is maintainable             only<\/p>\n
                before he Judge who has passed the order?<\/p>\n
                (2) Whether the Review Petition can be heard<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                by any other Judge in accordance with Rule 3<\/p>\n
                of    Chapter XXX of the High Court                 Appellate<\/p>\n
                Side Rules?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    2.          A    learned Judge of this court by his                    order<\/p>\n
    dated    6.6.2007 placing reliance on the judgment                          in<\/p>\n
    the    case      of Devaraju Pillai Vs.           Sellayya           Pillai<\/p>\n
    (1987)      1    SCC    61 was pleased to observe               that       the<\/p>\n
    remedy      for    the    review    petitioner         is     either        to<\/p>\n
    challenge        the order under review before the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court    or      move    a motion before the           Hon’ble         Chief<\/p>\n
    Justice      of    this Court for direction to                place        the<\/p>\n
    review<\/p>\n
                petition before Hon’ble Judge who had                      heard<\/p>\n
    the    matter      and at the relevant time had                 his      Head<\/p>\n
    Quarter      at    Aurangabad .        Hence directed           that       the<\/p>\n
    matter be removed from his Board.\n<\/p>\n
    .     The    matter      thereafter was        placed       before         the<\/p>\n
    another      learned      Judge    who    by    his      order         dated<\/p>\n
    19.3.2008 noted Chapter XXX Rule 3 of the High Court<\/p>\n
    Appellate        Side Rules and held that Review                  Petition<\/p>\n
    need not be placed before the same learned Judge, if<\/p>\n
    the     concerned        Judge    is     not    available           at     the<\/p>\n
    particular Bench.          The learned Judge also noted that<\/p>\n
    as    the    concerned learned Judge has since                    demitted<\/p>\n
    office,      the    same will have to be heard by a                    Judge<\/p>\n
    taking      up the concerned appeals.            However, in             view<\/p>\n
    of    the    earlier order passed by another                  Coordinate<\/p>\n
    Bench, the learned Judge thought it appropriate that<\/p>\n
    the    matter      be    placed    before      the     learned         Chief<\/p>\n
    Justice      for    consideration of the issues                 which       we<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
    have referred to earlier.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    4.        This matter was ordinarily fixed for hearing<\/p>\n
    on    9th July, 2008.        However, considering the             Bench<\/p>\n
    would    not    be    available, with the consent              of     the<\/p>\n
    parties, the matter was placed for hearing today and<\/p>\n
    has been heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    5.        We    have    considered      the    judgment        of     the<\/p>\n
    learned    Supreme      Court in Devaraju Pillai             (supra).<\/p>\n
    In    our opinion, the said judgment does not lay down<\/p>\n
    as    a proposition of law, that review would not                     lie<\/p>\n
    before<\/p>\n
              another learned Single Judge, if the learned<\/p>\n
    Single    Judge who had heard the Second appeal is not<\/p>\n
    available      either for the reason of ceasing to                  hold<\/p>\n
    office    or being not available at the Bench.                  Let us<\/p>\n
    consider the ratio of that Judgement.               In that case,<\/p>\n
    the     learned      Judge    sitting     in    second         appeal,<\/p>\n
    considering      the    documents construed the same as                  a<\/p>\n
    Deed    of Settlement.        An application for review               was<\/p>\n
    filed    against      the said judgment.        Another        learned<\/p>\n
    Judge    heard the matter, as the Judge who had                   heard<\/p>\n
    the    Second    Appeal was not available.            The      learned<\/p>\n
    Judge    who    decided      the     Review    reconsidered           the<\/p>\n
    document and held that it was a Will and not Deed of<\/p>\n
    Settlement.       It is in that context that the learned<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court has observed as under:<\/p>\n
              “If    the party was aggrieved by the judgment<\/p>\n
              of    the    learned      Single    Judge    sitting         in<\/p>\n
              second      appeal,      the appropriate remedy             for<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
               the      party was to file an appeal against the<\/p>\n
               judgment        of    the learned Single         Judge.          A<\/p>\n
               remedy      by    way of an application for review<\/p>\n
               was      entirely misconceived and we are                 sorry<\/p>\n
               to    say    that the learned Single             Judge        who<\/p>\n
               entertained the application totally exceeded<\/p>\n
               his      jurisdiction in allowing the review and<\/p>\n
               upsetting the judgment of the learned Single<\/p>\n
               Judge,      merely      because he took a          different<\/p>\n
               view on a construction of the document…”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    .          A    perusal, therefore of observations                   would<\/p>\n
    clearly<\/p>\n
                indicate that the learned Supreme Court was<\/p>\n
    pleased to hold that whilst sitting in review, it is<\/p>\n
    not open to another learned Single Judge, because he<\/p>\n
    had   different        view      on    the    construction        of     the<\/p>\n
    judgment       to    review the same.          The test for        review<\/p>\n
    are   as    laid down in Order 47 of the Code of                     Civil<\/p>\n
    Procedure.       The judgment therefore, is not authority<\/p>\n
    for the proposition that if the Judge who passed the<\/p>\n
    order   is not available, the review cannot be                       heard<\/p>\n
    by another single Judge in terms of the Rules framed<\/p>\n
    by    the      Court,      but    is     an    authority      for        the<\/p>\n
    proposition         that    it    is not open      to    the      another<\/p>\n
    learned     Single Judge to reappreciate or                 reconstrue<\/p>\n
    the   findings        on    the    same facts      which      had      been<\/p>\n
    considered       by the learned Judge who had disposed of<\/p>\n
    the   Appeal.        In our opinion, on this single                aspect<\/p>\n
    itself,     the reference ordinarily ought to have been<\/p>\n
    answered       and the matter be directed to be heard                     by<\/p>\n
    another learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
    6.       However,      considering      that   there         are      two<\/p>\n
    issues   referred      to    us in order to       avoid        further<\/p>\n
    litigation,     we propose to answer the two               questions<\/p>\n
    referred for our consideration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    .    Chapter XXX, Rule 3 of the Appellate Side                    Rules<\/p>\n
    reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “3.     (1)    An application for review or                  for<\/p>\n
             amendment      of    an    order or   a      decree,         for<\/p>\n
             speaking      to the minutes passed by a               Single<\/p>\n
             Judge<\/p>\n
                      of this Court shall be placed                 before<\/p>\n
             that    Judge,      provided, however, where               such<\/p>\n
             Judge has ceased to be the Judge of the High<\/p>\n
             Court or has ceased to sit at the particular<\/p>\n
             Bench,    such      application    shall        be     placed<\/p>\n
             before    the      regular    Court   of      the      Single<\/p>\n
             Judge,    dealing with the category of matters<\/p>\n
             to    which    the proceedings relates – as                  for<\/p>\n
             example :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (a) Writ petition, if the original order had<\/p>\n
             been    passed in a Writ Petition;              (b)      First<\/p>\n
             Appeals,      if    the    original order         had      been<\/p>\n
             passed    in    any    other Civil       matters;            (c)<\/p>\n
             Criminal      Appeals, if the original order had<\/p>\n
             been passed in any criminal matters;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided       that,      where   the      Single        Judge<\/p>\n
             concerned      is    not    available for         the      time<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
     being    by    reason    of he being on        leave       or<\/p>\n
     otherwise      as    aforesaid    such     application<\/p>\n
     shall    be placed before the Court of              Single<\/p>\n
     Judge to which the matter may be assigned by<\/p>\n
     the order of the Honourable Chief Justice.<\/p>\n
     (2)    Where the order has been passed or                 the<\/p>\n
     judgment      has    been delivered by a         Division<\/p>\n
     Bench,    such      application   shall      be     placed<\/p>\n
     before that Division Bench;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     .   Provided however, that where one Judge of<\/p>\n
     the said Division Bench has ceased to be the<\/p>\n
     Judge    of    the High Court, or has ceased               to<\/p>\n
     sit     at     the      particular      Bench,          such<\/p>\n
     application      shall be placed before            another<\/p>\n
     Division Bench of which the other Judge is a<\/p>\n
     Member;\n<\/p>\n
     .     Provided      further   that   when      both       the<\/p>\n
     Judges    have ceased to be the Judges of                 the<\/p>\n
     High    Court,      or have ceased to sit          at     the<\/p>\n
     particular      Bench, such application shall be<\/p>\n
     placed    before a Division Bench dealing with<\/p>\n
     –   (a) Writ Petition,s if the original order<\/p>\n
     had    been    passed in a Writ      Petition;            (b)<\/p>\n
     First    Appeals,      if the original       order        had<\/p>\n
     been passed in a First Appeal;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (c)    Criminal Appeals, if the original order<\/p>\n
     had    been    passed    in Criminal Appeal           or     a<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
              Criminal Application.”\n<\/p>\n
    .     It is thus clear that on the Judge ceasing to be<\/p>\n
    the    Judge    of this court, or ceases to sit                 at     the<\/p>\n
    particular      Bench,    the    application can          be     placed<\/p>\n
    before the Regular Court of the Single Judge.                      These<\/p>\n
    are rules which lay down the procedure for hearing a<\/p>\n
    review    petition.      These rules are not in             challenge<\/p>\n
    before us.      Once the rules are not in challenge, the<\/p>\n
    procedure      prescribed      by   these rules ought            to     be<\/p>\n
    followed.       Thus    there is jurisdiction           in      another<\/p>\n
    Judge    under the situation contemplated under Rule 3<\/p>\n
    of Chapter XXX to hear the review application.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        The     learned      counsel      for    the      appellant<\/p>\n
    however, drew to our attention the language of order<\/p>\n
    47,    Rule    3 of the Code of Civil         Procedure.             This<\/p>\n
    rule    has    been    substituted in Maharashtra               by     the<\/p>\n
    following rule.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “5.      Application       for     review       in       Court<\/p>\n
              consisting of two or more Judges – Where the<\/p>\n
              Judge    or Judges, or any one of the                 Judges,<\/p>\n
              who    passed the decree or made the order,                     a<\/p>\n
              review of which is applied for, continues or<\/p>\n
              continue      attached to the Court at the                 time<\/p>\n
              when    the    application       for     a    review          is<\/p>\n
              presented,      and is not or are not             precluded<\/p>\n
              by    absence    or other cause for a period                  of<\/p>\n
              two    months next after the application                   from<\/p>\n
              considering the decree or order to which the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                application       refers, such Judge or Judges or<\/p>\n
                any    of them shall hear the application, and<\/p>\n
                no    other Judge or Judges of the Court shall<\/p>\n
                hear the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                .    Provided that if in the case of decree or<\/p>\n
                order    passed      by Division Bench of              two     or<\/p>\n
                more Judges of the High Court sitting at any<\/p>\n
                place    in the State of Maharashtra, all                     the<\/p>\n
                said    Judges are not available, for                  sitting<\/p>\n
                together     at    one    place     when       the      review<\/p>\n
                application        is    ready     for      hearing           the<\/p>\n
                application may be heard by a Division Bench<\/p>\n
                of two or more Judges, at least one of whom,<\/p>\n
                if    available,      should be the Judge who                 had<\/p>\n
                passed    the     decree      or order, a        review        of<\/p>\n
                which applied for.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    .    Referring to this rule, the learned Counsel sought<\/p>\n
    to    contend      that it is the same Judge who ought                     to<\/p>\n
    have    heard the matter.           In our opinion, this              would<\/p>\n
    not    be    proper construction of the rule.                  The      rule<\/p>\n
    firstly contemplates that the Judge must continue to<\/p>\n
    be    attached to the court.           In other words, he               must<\/p>\n
    not cease to be a Judge.             Further he ought to be not<\/p>\n
    precluded        by absence or other cause for a period of<\/p>\n
    two     months      next    after      the    application,              from<\/p>\n
    considering        the   decree      or     order     to     which        the<\/p>\n
    application        refers.       Only in such a case will                 the<\/p>\n
    same    Judge hear the matter.             Otherwise       considering<\/p>\n
    the    rules      framed    by this court, any            other       Judge<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                    -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
    assigned       the work in terms of the allotment done by<\/p>\n
    the     learned Chief Justice, can hear the matter.                          In<\/p>\n
    Keith     Allams         and    Others Vs.       Irwon      D’silva         and<\/p>\n
    Others       2000       (1) Bombay Cases Reporter,             788,        this<\/p>\n
    court     was      considering         in     Appeal    the       procedure<\/p>\n
    pertaining         to recording of evidence.              The      question<\/p>\n
    for     consideration was whether when the Judge ceases<\/p>\n
    to     try that matter, the evidence should be recorded<\/p>\n
    de     novo    or successor Judge can continue                    from      the<\/p>\n
    stage     where the evidence was last recorded.                           After<\/p>\n
    considering         various provision, the court noted that<\/p>\n
    what     must      be taken into account is that the                      court<\/p>\n
    has     to<\/p>\n
                  deal with a matter of procedure.                     Secondly<\/p>\n
    keeping       in    view       the huge pendency        and       delay      in<\/p>\n
    disposal of cases, if otherwise, permissible in law,<\/p>\n
    the     approach         to    be    adopted     in    the     matter        of<\/p>\n
    procedure should be such which may advance the cause<\/p>\n
    of     justice and help in expeditious disposal                       rather<\/p>\n
    than the one which may result in further delays.<\/p>\n
    8.           In    the     instant case, Order 47 Rule 5                   will<\/p>\n
    have to be read with the rules framed by this court.<\/p>\n
    In      Iridum      India       Telecom       Ltd.     Vs.         Motorola<\/p>\n
    Incorporation,2005 (2) S.C.C.                  145 the Supreme court<\/p>\n
    dealing       with the procedure under Rule 1 of Order                         8<\/p>\n
    held    that       he    procedure      for    filing       the      written<\/p>\n
    statement         would       not be applicable to the suits                 on<\/p>\n
    the    Original Side of a Chartered High Court.                           This<\/p>\n
    view    has       been    reiterated in the Judgment                 of     the<\/p>\n
    Supreme       Court      in     Vidyawati Gupta and          Others         Vs.<\/p>\n
    Bhakti Hari Nayak and Others, (2006) 2 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
    Cases 777.        The learned counsel seeks to submit that<\/p>\n
    this is based on the rules made on the Original Side<\/p>\n
    and    therefore,      would      not    be    applicable           to     the<\/p>\n
    appellate      side.      We may only refer in that                 context<\/p>\n
    to the observation of Chief Justice Chagla in Shirin<\/p>\n
    Vishnu      Kirpalani      Vs.    Vishnu Hiaranand            Kirpalani,<\/p>\n
    13,    A.I.R.     1960 Bombay 447.            The learned Judge was<\/p>\n
    speaking       for     the       Bench        dealing         with         the<\/p>\n
    applicability of Order 41, Rule 35 of the Code.                            The<\/p>\n
    court    noticed      that the High Court          exercising              its<\/p>\n
    Appellate      Side    Jurisdiction        is not bound             by     the<\/p>\n
    mandatory      provisions        of   Order 41,        Rule       35,      and<\/p>\n
    although      the<\/p>\n
                         High    Court has framed rules                 on     the<\/p>\n
    Original      Side there was no such rules framed on the<\/p>\n
    appellate      Side.       The Court observed that,                 in     the<\/p>\n
    absence      of any such rules, it seems that the                      power<\/p>\n
    of the High Court in its Appellate Side Jurisdiction<\/p>\n
    is    not    fettered      by the provisions.              The      learned<\/p>\n
    Chief    Justice observed that there is no reason why,<\/p>\n
    if    a Judge on the Original Side is armed with                         that<\/p>\n
    power, the Judge sitting in appeal in the High Court<\/p>\n
    should      not    have    similar      power, though           it     is     a<\/p>\n
    different      matter      that    power is      to      be     exercised<\/p>\n
    sparingly and with caution.\n<\/p>\n
    .           The    appellate side rules are in                conformity<\/p>\n
    with    the provisions of Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code.<\/p>\n
    These    rules      are not under challenge before us                      and<\/p>\n
    even    if    order 47 Rule 5 as amended by this                     court,<\/p>\n
    has    to be held inapplicable on the Appellate                        side,<\/p>\n
    the    judgment      in Kripalani would be an answer.                       As<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
    noted earlier, also Chapter XXX Rule 13 is not under<\/p>\n
    challenge before us.          Therefore, as long as the rule<\/p>\n
    subsists,       it    is    these       rules    which     govern        the<\/p>\n
    procedure      for hearing of review petitions when                     the<\/p>\n
    Judge    who had passed the order has demitted                    office<\/p>\n
    or is not available at the Bench where the order has<\/p>\n
    been    passed.      Procedure is a hand maid of               justice.<\/p>\n
    Provisions      pertaining to procedure have to be                    read<\/p>\n
    to      further       the      cause        of     justice.             Any<\/p>\n
    interpretation,        which will defeat this object, will<\/p>\n
    have    to be rejected unless the express language                       of<\/p>\n
    the     provision      leaves      no     room    for    any        other<\/p>\n
    interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        The    learned counsel then sought to                  contend<\/p>\n
    that in Devaraju Pillai (supra) the observations are<\/p>\n
    obiter    dicta      and that obiter dicta of the                Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court    is binding on the High Courts in the                    absence<\/p>\n
    of a direct pronouncement on that question elsewhere<\/p>\n
    by that court.(See Oriental Insurance Co.                    ltd.       Vs.<\/p>\n
    Meeta    Variyal      and    Others (2007) 5        Supreme         Court<\/p>\n
    Cases     428.        In     our        opinion,      mere        casual<\/p>\n
    observations,         assuming       that       there      are        such<\/p>\n
    observations      in    Devraju Pillai (supra) can not                   be<\/p>\n
    said    to be an obiter dicta.            What is binding on the<\/p>\n
    High    Court    and    Courts subordinate, is             the      ratio<\/p>\n
    decendi of the judgment.            It is only in a case where<\/p>\n
    though    not    required      to be answered,          the      Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court    has    pronounced the law or declared the                    law,<\/p>\n
    will    only such obiter be binding on the High                     Court<\/p>\n
    provided    that      Supreme      Court     otherwise         has      not<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
    pronounced      on    that issue.      The view that           we     have<\/p>\n
    taken    is    fortified by the Full Bench Judgement                     of<\/p>\n
    this    Court    in      Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas           Patel        Vs.<\/p>\n
    Union    of    India and Others, 1995(2) Bom.C.R.                     640.<\/p>\n
    Considering      as      to what would be obiter           dicta        and<\/p>\n
    what is binding, the Full Bench set out that what is<\/p>\n
    binding      under the provisions of Article 141 of                     the<\/p>\n
    Constitution        of    India,is the law declared              by     the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    .    If there is a clear enunciation or declaration of<\/p>\n
    law,    the    same      would be biding     even       though        such<\/p>\n
    declaration<\/p>\n
                     was not strictly necessary for disposal<\/p>\n
    of    the    case    or    the declaration     of       law      is     not<\/p>\n
    followed      by actual application thereof in the                    case<\/p>\n
    in question.        The law declared as well as applied in<\/p>\n
    a particular decision becomes ratio decidendi of the<\/p>\n
    case    while    a mere declaration of law, even                  though<\/p>\n
    solemn      and thoroughly reasoned, without application<\/p>\n
    thereof is branded as obiter dicta.             In our opinion,<\/p>\n
    having      explained      the    ratio   decendi       in     Devaraju<\/p>\n
    Pillai      (supra)      and even considering         the      argument<\/p>\n
    that    the obiter dicta is binding, clearly there                       is<\/p>\n
    no    declaration or enunciation of law by the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court    as to review based on the rules made by                      this<\/p>\n
    Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Considering      the    above,   the      Reference          is<\/p>\n
    answered as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    .           Question No. 1        in the negative.\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:33:42 :::<\/span>\n                        -13-<\/span>\n\n\n\n    .       Question No. 2 in the affirmative.\n\n\n\n    .       Reference disposed of accordingly.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                                         \n    .       The Registry to place the matter before the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Judge assigned to take up Review Petitions.<\/p>\n
    (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)          (F.I.REBELLO, J.)<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:33:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 Bench: F.I. Rebello, K.U. Chandiwal -1- HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1324 OF 2005 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, established under the MHADA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-22T11:08:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T11:08:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2659,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T11:08:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-22T11:08:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T11:08:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008"},"wordCount":2659,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008","name":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T11:08:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-p-v-anturkar-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs P.V. Anturkar on 4 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}