caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Municipal Corporation, … vs Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave on 31 January, 2020Author: V. Ramasubramanian
Bench: N.V. Ramana, V. Ramasubramanian
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18065 of 2018
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
AND ORS. … Petitioners
Versus
PANNA MAHESH CHANDRA DAVE AND ANR. … Respondents
WITH
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18212 of 2018
AND
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18289 of 2018
AND
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18399 of 2018
AND
Signature Not Verified
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18599 of 2018
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
AND
Date: 2020.01.31
15:20:04 IST
Reason:
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18336 of 2018
2
AND
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18376 of 2018
AND
Special Leave Petition (C) No.18210 of 2018
JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Challenging a common order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in a batch of twelve writ petitions, granting
the relief of allotment of alternative site to the petitioners in eleven
writ petitions (tenants) and granting the relief of consideration of a
request for grant of TDR (Transferable Development Rights)/DRC
(Development Right Certificate) to the petitioners in one writ petition
(owners of the land), the Municipal Corporation of Bombay has come
up with the present special leave petitions.
2. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Bombay and Mr.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
3
contesting private respondents.
3. The private respondents herein filed writ petitions on the file of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the demolition
of the superstructures put up by them on a plot of land bearing CTS
Nos.4009/1 to 4009/7 at Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, MSD
Mumbai 400068. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 in Special Leave
Petition (C) No.18376 of 2018 (who were the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.3090 of 2017) was a little different from the case of the
petitioners in the other 11 writ petitions.
4. The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3090 of 2017
(Respondents 1 to 3 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18376 of 2018),
was that the aforesaid land originally belonged to one Mr. Dattatray
Mahadev Angare as per the City Survey Record; that upon the death
of the original owner, his wife Sushila was recorded as the owner in
the revenue records in the year 1983; that upon Sushila’s death on
15.03.1995, the names of her legal heirs, including the name of her
son Mr. Suresh Angare were entered in the revenue record; that the
said Suresh Angare died on 31.01.2008 leaving behind him
4
surviving, his widow and two sons, who were the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.3090 of 2017; that those legal heirs thus became the
owners of the aforesaid plot and the superstructures standing
thereon; that the family of Dattatray Mahadev Angare had put up 11
structures, in the year 1955, on the said plot of land and the same
was named as Jeevan Ganga Chawl; that those structures were let
out to tenants; that in the year 1961, the superstructures were also
assessed by the Municipal Corporation; that the owners were regular
in paying tax to the Municipal Corporation, from the year 1961; that
in view of the said assessment, the Chawl became a protected
structure within the datum line of year 1962; that therefore the
Chawl cannot be demolished or removed without providing
permanent alternative accommodation to the tenants; that vide a
notice dated 13.02.1979 issued under Section 351 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, the Corporation Authorities claimed that
3 of those structures were illegally constructed and were liable to be
demolished; that challenging the said notice, Sushila Dattatray
Angare filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction against
demolition; that again the Municipal Corporation issued notice dated
5
23.06.2008 to four tenants on the ground that Bharucha Road was
to be widened and that those four tenants will be allotted alternate
accommodation at Anand Nagar Municipal Market; that those four
tenants expressed unwillingness to accept the alternative
accommodation at that point of time; that thereafter Municipal
Corporation again issued a notice dated 02.07.2016 to those four
tenants offering a fresh allotment in the Municipal Retail Market;
that subsequently the Corporation issued proceedings dated
11.04.2017 cancelling those allotments on the ground that those
four allottees did not take possession; that again on 11.10.2017, the
Corporation issued a fresh notice to those four tenants to vacate the
premises within seven days; that on 26.10.2017, the officials of the
Municipal Corporation suddenly landed up in the premises along
with a police force from Dahisar Police Station and started
demolishing the superstructures in which the tenants were carrying
on business; that thereafter the officials of the Corporation forcibly
removed all the eleven tenants from the premises and demolished
their structures; that the officials of the Corporation did not even
permit the tenants to remove their valuables including cash,
6
furniture and fixtures from the premises and that therefore after
issuing a legal notice, the writ petitioners were conceded to approach
the High Court.
5. While what is stated above, was the case of the petitioners in
W.P. No. 3090 of 2017, the case of the petitioners in the other writ
petitions was that they are tenants in respect of the 11 structures
put up in the premises and that they have been forcibly evicted and
the structures demolished without following due process of law.
6. The Corporation filed separate affidavits in reply to each of the
writ petitions contending inter alia that Padmakar Javle Road, which
is parallel to Dahisar Railway Station at East, provides the only
access to the commuters approaching the Railway station; that the
width of the road was only 5 meters; that considering the
narrowness of the road and considering the need to allow access to
fire brigade and ambulance in case of any untoward incident, the
Municipal Commissioner, by his proceeding dated 15.01.1974
prescribed a Regular Line for the said Padmakar Javle Road upto
13.40 meters, in terms of the provisions of Section 297(1) of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act; that when the Corporation took
7
steps for widening the road, a few people approached the City Civil
Court and those who were found eligible were granted alternative
premises; that the Municipal Corporation received a letter dated
10.03.2010 from the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority
Borivali stating that the ownership of the land affected by the road
widening, vested with State Government; that out of the 11
structures demolished by the Corporation, 4 were found to belong to
persons who were eligible for alternative accommodation; that
however even those persons had approached the Court by filing writ
petitions; that those four persons did not accept the alternative
accommodation despite repeated offers and, hence, the offer had to
be withdrawn; that out of the remaining structures, 4 were found
only to be illegal shanties and the names of persons claiming to be
the owners of these shanties, are not reflected in Annexure II
prepared by the Deputy Collector; that the Corporation was willing
to grant necessary benefits such as TDR to the original owner of the
plot of land which is affected by the road widening scheme; that the
first respondent in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18376 of 2018
attended the meeting convened in this regard on 11.11.2017, but
8
failed to contact the office of the Chief Engineer (DP); and that
therefore the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.
7. After considering the pleadings and the contentions advanced
on both sides, the High Court found that it was not even the case of
the Municipal Corporation that they followed due process of law
before demolishing the structures and that the action of the
Municipal Corporation in demolishing the superstructures and
taking forceful possession was high handed. But instead of granting
the relief of restitution, the High Court granted one set of reliefs to
the persons claiming to be the owners of the land and another set of
reliefs to the tenants. It is enough to extract the operative portion of
the order of the High Court to show the nature of the reliefs granted.
It reads as follows:
“(i) It will be open for the petitioners in Writ Petition (L)
No.3090 of 2017 to make an Application to the Municipal
Commissioner for grant of TDR (Transferable
Development Rights)/DRC (Development Right Certificate)
in respect of the area out of the road widening. If such an
Application is made, the Municipal Corporation or its
appropriate authority shall decide the same within a
period of 60 days from the date of filing of the
Application. The decision taken thereon shall be
communicated to the petitioners immediately thereafter.
We clarify that we have made no adjudication on the title
9
claimed by the said petitioners;
(ii) As regards the petitioners in all the other Writ
Petitions, we direct the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to
allot to the said Petitioners tenements having the size
equal to that of their demolished tenements. The
premises offered shall be in a vicinity of the demolished
premises. The premises shall be such that the same will
have a frontage on any of the main road;
(iii) The allotment of the premises shall be made to the
said Writ Petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in
any event on or before 30 June, 2018;
(iv) We make it clear that the allotment will have to be
made free of cost. However, it will be open for the
Municipal Corporation to impose appropriate terms and
conditions;
(v) The Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid
directions;
(vi) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.
8. Before proceeding further, it must be recorded that the High
Court was actually convinced to order restitution, but the High
Court refrained from doing so only due to the fact that a public road
had already been constructed on the land. In other words, the High
Court actually balanced the private interests of the respondents
herein and the public interest.
10
9. Despite the fact that the High Court merely granted limited
reliefs and despite the fact that even according to the Corporation,
four out of eleven tenants were eligible for alternative
accommodation, which was in fact offered to them, the Municipal
Corporation came up with twelve special leave petitions against the
common order passed in twelve writ petitions. The only substantial
questions of law sought to be raised by the petitioners were (i)
whether the High Court could have overlooked the readiness and
willingness on the part of the Municipal Corporation to grant the
benefit of TDR to the original owner of the plot of land; and (ii)
whether the High Court was right in overlooking the prescription of a
Regular Line way back in the year 1974 for the widening of the road
from 5 meters to 13.40 meters.
10. Though the aforesaid questions would not technically qualify as
substantial questions of law of public importance, this Court
ordered notice in the special leave petitions and also granted a stay
of operation of the impugned judgment, on 30.07.2018 when the
special leave petitions came up for hearing.
11
11. Subsequently on 05.12.2018 this Court disposed of four special
leave petitions which arose out of writ petition Nos.3087, 3089, 3092
and 3095 of 2017, on the short ground that the Municipal
Corporation had itself found the petitioners therein to be eligible for
allotment of alternate accommodation. After so disposing of four out
of twelve writ petitions on 05.12.2018, this Court proceeded to direct
the Secretary of the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee to
examine the relevant records and to submit a report about the
eligibility of the other tenants to alternate accommodation. This
order was passed in view of the stand taken by the Municipal
Corporation that the other tenants were not eligible for alternate
accommodation as per the guidelines of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation. It will be useful to extract the order dated 05.12.2018
passed by this Court as follows:
“Applications seeking exemption from filing official
translation of Annexures are allowed.
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
The respondentsherein filed Writ Petitions before the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming that they
are the owners of the land and structures which were
taken away by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for
widening of road without paying any compensation to
12
them.
After hearing the parties, the High Court has disposed of
the Writ Petitions with the following directions which are
extracted below:
(i) xx xx xx xx
(ii) As regards the petitioners in all the other Writ
Petitions, we direct the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to
allot to the said petitioners tenements having the size
equal to that of their demolished tenements. The
premises offered shall be in the vicinity of the demolished
premises. The premises shall be such that the same will
have a frontage on any of the main roads;
(iii) The allotment of the premises shall be made to the
said Writ Petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in
any event on or before 30th June, 2018.
(iv) We make it clear that the allotment will have to be
made free of cost. However, it will be open for the
Municipal Corporation to impose appropriate terms and
conditions.
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation challenged the
impugned order of the High Court by way of filing Special
Leave Petitions before us.
Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that out of eleven
respondents, who filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court, four persons namely (i) Shri Bhimsen P. Singh, (ii)
Mr. Anil Surajman Shukla, (iii) Mr. Muniram Shivpujan
Gupta and (iv) Mr. Kantilal Girdhar Gandhi are eligible
for allotment of alternative premises at a suitable place,
as per the policy of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, if
they comply the conditions imposed by the said
Corporation.
Therefore, Special Leave Petition No.17082/2018,
Special Leave Petition No.18331/2018, Special Leave
Petition No.18403/2018 and Special Leave Petition
No.18384/2018 are disposed of recording the statement
made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners.
13
So far as remaining seven respondents are concerned,
four of them are not eligible as per the guidelines of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation and rest of the three are
ineligible as per the Slum Rehabilitation Act.
However, learned Senior counsel submits that in case
those seven respondents produce relevant material, the
Municipal Corporation, after examining the material and
if it is satisfied, they are willing to extend the benefit as
per the regulations and rules.
In view of the stand taken by the learned Senior counsel
for the Corporation, we direct the parties to appear before
the Secretary, Legal Services Authority of the Bombay
High Court and the said Authority will examine the
relevant records produced by the petitioners as well as
the respondents and submit a report before this Court
about their eligibility in accordance with the guidelines of
the State Government as well as the Municipal
Corporation/Slum Development Authority.
We direct the parties to approach the Secretary, Legal
Services Authority of the Bombay High Court within a
week’s time from the date of receipt of the order to enable
the said Authority to decide and submit a report
expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of communication of this order. List the
other Special Leave Petitions after Report is received from
the Legal Services Authority of the Bombay High Court.”
12. Pursuant to the said order, the Secretary of the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Bombay filed a report dated 07.02.2019.
The important findings recorded in the Report of the High Court
Legal Services Committee are (1) that the assessment certificate
issued by the Corporation shows the existence of superstructures
from a period prior to 1961 (2) that some of the respondents in the
14
special leave petitions were issued with notices under Section 3Z(2)
(i) of the Slum Act and that they are eligible for permanent
alternative accommodation, as they have produced electricity bill
Gumasta Licence etc. from a period prior to 1995 while the cutoff
date was only 01.01.2000 and (3) that the other respondents are
also eligible for permanent alternative accommodation, as their
superstructures were duly assessed in the year 1961 and
indisputably, those structures were demolished on 26.10.2017.
13. The Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit of objections to
the Report of the High Court Legal Services Committee. It is claimed
in the said affidavit that the respondents did not produce any proof
of existence of superstructures prior to the Datum Line of 1962; that
the shop owners failed to submit any valid, legal proof; that the land
under reference was not declared as a slum under the Slum Act;
that the owner of the land Smt. Geeta Angare had not submitted the
names of the eligible tenants; that out of 11 structures, the
occupants of 4 structures were already found eligible for alternate
accommodation; that out of the remaining 7 structures, 3 have been
15
assessed to tax and that, therefore, in addition to the 4 structures
declared eligible earlier, 3 more may become eligible for alternative
accommodation.
14. Drawing our attention to the various documents and also to the
Report of the High Court Legal Services Committee, it was
strenuously contended by Mr. Shekhar Naphade that the grant of
alternate accommodation cannot be claimed by the respondents as a
matter of right, unless they fulfill the parameters fixed by the
Municipal Corporation and that the adhoc identification of parties
for the grant of alternate accommodation without any supporting
documents would create huge disparities. The learned Senior
Counsel has also assailed the findings of the High Court Legal
Services Committee on the ground that those findings were not
supported by any documentary evidence.
15. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned
senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation. We should point out
at the outset that the legal heirs of the original owner of the land
were the petitioners in one writ petition and eleven persons claiming
16
to be the tenants, were the petitioners in the other writ petitions.
Insofar as persons claiming to be the owners of the land are
concerned, the Municipal Corporation itself had conceded before the
High Court that they were willing to offer TDR. In paragraph 15 of
the affidavit in reply filed by the Municipal Corporation in Writ
Petition No. 3090 of 2017, it was stated by the Municipal
Corporation as follows:
“I say that the respondents Nos.2 to 4 are willing to grant
the necessary benefit such as TDR to the rightful owner
of the plot of land which is affected by road widening
scheme. I say that the petitioner No.1 had contacted the
officers at R/North Ward as regarding the issuance of
TDR. The petitioner No.1 had attended the meeting in
Asst. Municipal Commissioner, R/North office on 11 th
November, 2017, when she was informed that she has to
contact the office of Chief Engineer (DP) along with
relevant papers. I say that the petitioner had agreed and
given assurance to the respondent that she will contact
the said office for granting her TDR in lieu of land being
acquired for the purpose of road widening. I understand
that petitioner No.1 has not contacted the office of Chief
Engineer (OP) for the reasons best known to her.”
16. After having stated so in their affidavit in reply, the Municipal
Corporation ought not to have come up with a special leave petition
even in respect of Writ Petition No.3090 of 2017. In fact one of the
two substantial questions of law sought to be raised, which we have
17
extracted earlier, also concedes the position taken the Corporation
that the respondents 1 to 3 in Special Leave Petition No.18376 of
2018 are entitled to relief. Therefore, we do not know how and why
the Corporation is blowing hot and cold.
17. Insofar as those eleven tenants are concerned, the Corporation
agreed both before the High Court and before this Court that four of
them are entitled to alternate accommodation. Therefore, the special
leave petitions filed in respect of those four have also been disposed
of by the order dated 05.12.2018.
18. Therefore, we are left only with seven tenants. In the affidavit
of objections filed to the Report of the High Court Legal Services
Committee, the Corporation has conceded that three out of those
seven tenants are also eligible. Therefore, ultimately the dispute has
boiled down only to four tenants.
19. The High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the
Municipal Corporation demolished the superstructures and took
possession in a high handed manner. The Legal Services Committee
has recorded a finding that the superstructures were in existence
from a period prior to 1961. These findings of fact cannot be
18
interfered with by this Court in a special leave petition under Article
136 of the Constitution of India, unless the findings shock our
conscience. The findings of the High court are not perverse.
Therefore, we find absolutely no grounds to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court. Hence, the special leave petitions are
dismissed. No costs.
…..…………………………..J
(N.V. Ramana)
…..…………………………..J
(Vineet Saran)
.…..………………………….J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
JANUARY 31 ,2020
NEW DELHI.
Comments