7 hereto, Shri H. Suresh, Retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, is appointed as Conciliator with regard to dispute between the Petitioners and Re spondent No.
7 ap pellant herein .In the said writ petition the High Court by the order dated 6.3.1999 appointed a companyciliator with regard to the dispute between the parties.
7 of the writ petition.
They prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.4.1997 and the eviction order dated 18.12.1998 for a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction or order directing MHADA and its Estate Manager and the respondent number 7 in the writ petition appellant herein to restore to them possession of the flat No.
7 as his agent, on monthly royalty of Rs.
510/99, asserting their title to the property.
16/199.
In companypliance with the directions of the High Court the companypetent authority of MHADA passed the order dated 18.12.1998 rejecting the claim of respondent number 3 and companyfirming the allotment regularisation of the flat in the name of the appel lant.
The appellant also became a member of the society of flat owners of the building called Melody Cooperative Housing Society of which the flat in question is a part.
7 relating to Flat No.
In pursuance of the order dated 23.4.1997 MHADA evicted all the unauthorised occupants from the flat and sealed the same.
5072/98 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of eviction passed by MHADA under section 66 1 of the Act against him.
2000 3 SCR 1140 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is hereby appointed as Receiver of aforesaid Flat No.
It was the case of the respondent number 3 writ petitioner that he had also companytributed a sum of Rs.
The MHADA had granted lease of the said flat to one N.H. Krishanan, who transferred his right, title and interest thereunder to one Manmeet Singh Chadha under an agreement of transfer dated 7th April, 1986.
4,00,000 to respondent number 7 appellant herein he shall vacate the flat No.
The appellant had applied to MHADA for regularisation of allotment of the flat in his name.
3, though it stood in the name of N.H. Krishnan, and therefore, they were unauthorised occupants of the flat.
A Division Bench of the High Court summarily rejected the objections raised against the Conciliators report.
The proposals in the Conciliators report included the stipulation i.e. 1 that on petitioners respondents 3 4 herein paying a sum of Rs.
4 is wife of respondent number 3.
The Receiver shall number insist tor security and shall number display his board at the suit flat.
It is relevant to state here that the so called proposal by the Conciliator was number signed by the parties, number were its terms disclosed to the parties by the Conciliator.
The relevant portion of the order reads thus By companysent of the Petitioners and Respondent No.
By the agreement for transfer dated 21.11.1989 the right, title and interest of the flat was purchased by the appellant for a companysideration of Rs.
3,45,000.
On 19.9.1998 respondent number 3 filed Writ Petition No.
The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed by the respondent No.
The respondent Nos.
A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by the order dated 7.10.1998 directing, inter alia that the companypetent authority of MHADA would re examine the claims of the respondent No.
16/199, with a further direction to take formal possession of the said flat from Respondent No.
1,25,000 for the purpose of purchase of the flat alongwith his brother, the appellant herein, though the documents stood in the name of the latter.
On receipt of the report a proceeding was initiated under section 66 1 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1966 for short the Act .
16/199 at Ramakrishna Nagar, Khar, W , Mumbai, belonging to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai for short MHADA .
The parties agreed to the above and requested the Conciliator to settle on these lines, and the Conciliator to fix all the relevant terms, including the requirement the petitioner foregoing his claim for the ancestral flat i.e. 18/224, K.Nagar.
In the companycluding portion of the minutes of the said meeting it is recorded accord ingly these proceedings companye to an ending excepting the Conciliator will make a report to the High Court incorporating the terms of settlement.
The dispute raised in the case centres round the flat bearing No.
3 4 challenged the order dated 18.12.1998 of MHADA by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Writ Petition No.
Subsequently, after examining the relevant documents MHADA regularised the allotment of the flat in favour of the appellant by an order under the Act.
1,000 to be deposited with the Conciliator, subject to the final award.
Raj Kumari Pitambar Thakur Respondent No.
The learned Conciliator is requested to submit his report award, and preferably within six months.
Melody Co operative Housing Society Ltd., Ramakrishna Nagar, 9th Road, Khar, Mumbai 400 052 including the issue of title, regularisation possession and companypensation, if any.
In pursuance of the said order Justice H. Suresh Retired held meetings on 20.4.99, 5.7.99, 25.7.99, 8.8.99 and on 24.8.99 in presence of the companynsel for the parties.
The Meeting is number adjourned to 24th Aug., 1999 at 4.30 p.m. when the Advocates will make all the relevant submissions which will enable the Conciliator to fix the amount and the other terms of settlement.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the name itself suggests, deals with two types of proceeding arbitration proceedings and companyciliation proceedings.
The appellant filed an objection against the report of the Conciliator setting out various grounds of challenge.
The Conciliator in his report dated 31.8.1999 which was sent to the High Court stated inter alia, that after taking into account all the submissions made by both the parties and after companysidering all the relevant documents and papers and pleading he Conciliator proposes to settle the dispute in the manner set out in the report.
In the minutes of the last meeting held on 24.8.1999 the Conciliator recorded that both the advocates have companypleted their submissions in respect of the amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent to enable the Conciliator to fix the amount as numbered in the last meeting that both the advocates stated that there are numberfurther submissions to be made.
In December 1992 on a routine inspection of the premises the Estate Manager of MHADA reported that the property was in occupation of the appellant and his family members including respondent No.
7, and appoint Respondent No.
16/199 at Ramakrishna Nagar, Khar W , Mumbai and for issue of a writ of mandamus to MHADA to regularise allotment of the said flat in favour of the writ petitioners and for an interim direction restoring possession of the flat to them after obtaining possession thereof from respondent No.
The parties agree and undertake to this Court that the decision of the Conciliator will be final and binding on both the parties.
In the said order leave was given to the present appellant to establish his claim in respect of the property in light of the deed of transfer dated 21.11.1989 and other documents executed by the allottee in his favour.
16/199 by the Petitioners be regularised in their favour by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Develop ment Authority Respondent No.
Appellant Haresh Dayaram Thakur and respondent No.
3 Pitambar Dayaram Thakur are brothers.
