Writ against mcgm

Mohammed Rizwan Shaikh (Querist) 12 January 2020 This query is : Resolved
Sir,
A writ petition was filed in 2015 by a firm and the petitioner himself in respect to a land which was divided by Consent Term and Agreement in 1987. The Petitioner holds 10% share in the firm. As the Respondents were trying to develop the said land without the permission and consent of the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition. The Petitioner had prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the MCGM to earmark the plot of the Petitioner. Behind the back of the Petitioner, the Respondent was succesful in getting the 10% share of the Petitioner from the Petitioners divorced wife through MOU and rest 90% through the partners of the firm. The Petitioner expired in 2017. Thereafter the wife of the Petitioner filed Chamber Summons to implead herself as Petitioner 1-A in the said Writ Petition. The matter reached in June 2018, the Hon'ble COurt dismissed by stating that the Petitioner is trying to establish rights and share by writ petition and directed to file suit for the same.

Here, I would like to say that the rights of the petitioner firm and petitioner were already established by Consent Term and Agreement between the parties. The fraud committed by the Respondent in dealing with the divorced wife of the Petitioner in 2013 was highlighted before the MCGM authority. Several complaints were filed but it was all in vain. Apart from vague replies nothing relevant or concrete reply was received by the wife of the deceased Partner/Petitioner. The wife of the deceased Petitioner also informed that the fraud shall be highlighted before the court.

So now in such case, what legal remedy is with the wife of the deceased partner/Petitioner? Can she file Writ against MCGM for not reacting to the complaints and/or fraud committed by the Respondent to get the plans sanctioned to develop the said land and for issuing irrelevant orders? Or the wife should file a Suit against the builder/developer? Legally, 10% share of the deceased partner/petitioner is still intact. The Complaint has been submitted with the LOKAYUKTA, Maharashtra, but no reply yet.

Please advice experts.

Mohammed Rizwan

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

A deceased partner's wife is seeking legal recourse after her husband's writ petition against the MCGM was dismissed. The original petition concerned a land dispute where the respondent allegedly obtained the petitioner's share through fraud. Despite complaints to the MCGM and the Lokayukta, no action has been taken. Experts advise the wife to file a partition suit to secure her husband's 10% share and consider a criminal complaint regarding the alleged fraud.

P. Venu (Expert) 13 January 2020
Please post concise and simple facts.

Sb Karma (Expert) 13 January 2020
Need your document reference ,it will help us best to determine the facts of the case and situation.
So please consult for local lawyer with your relevant facts..he will assist you best with details,via online it is hard to advise proper

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 13 January 2020
After minutely going through the facts of your query, I am of the considered opinion that the wife of the deceased should first go for the partition of the joint land and should get the possession of the specific land as legal heir of her deceased husband.

So far as the alleged fraud of the respondents started since 2013 is concerned, a separate criminal complaint can be filed before the area magistrate under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code read with section 156 (3) of the Act.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 18 January 2020
The petitioner's wife as a LR is entitled to the share of the petitioner.
She could have continued the writ petition filed by her deceased husband in the capacity or his LR by filing a petition to implead herself as a LR or successor in interest to the deceased petitioner.
As the high court has directed her to file a suit seeking her share in the said property, she has a relief by filing a partition suit by citing the high court order in her favor.
She may better go in a proper and right direction for the desired relief instead of getting misguided by filing umpteen number of proceedings.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries