Writ Petition No. 2396 of 2013, Notice of Motion (ST.) No. 212 of 2015, Writ Petition No. 1470 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 2398 of 2013, Notice of Motion (ST.) No. 211 of 2015. Case: Sayyed Ataullah Qadri and Ors. Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2396 of 2013, Notice of Motion (ST.) No. 212 of 2015, Writ Petition No. 1470 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 2398 of 2013, Notice of Motion (ST.) No. 211 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Piyush Raheja, Sunil Gangan and Jayesh Mestry i/by RMG Law Associates and For Respondents: Geeta Shastri, Additional Government Pleader |
| Judges | Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and V. L. Achliya, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 300A; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 154 |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
-
As common issues arise in these Petitions, the same have been taken up together for final disposal.
-
Writ Petition No. 2396 of 2013 relates to the land bearing Survey No. 127(Part) and City Survey No. 6564 B (Part) situated at village Kole Kalyan admeasuring 417.16 square meters at Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 029. The Petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the said land. The Petitioner is also claiming to be in legal possession of the land bearing Survey No. 126(P) admeasuring 517 square meters situated at Chunabhatti, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 029. In respect of this land, he is claiming that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The case of the Petitioner in this Petition is that on the land bearing CTS No. 6564 B (Part) admeasuring 417.16 square meters which is owned by him, there are eight sheds constructed which were used for storing rubber and metal material. The aforesaid lands have been more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the Petition. It is claimed that a portion of the said lands was taken over by the State of Maharashtra for the purposes of widening of Mithi River. It is claimed that the land was taken over in terms of the directions issued by this Court in PIL Writ Petition No. 2116 of 2005. The second Respondent in the said Writ Petition is the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short "BMC") established under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "the said Act of 1888"). The fourth Respondent is the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short "MMRDA") which is established under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974. The third Respondent is the Mithi River Development and Protection Authority (for short "the said Authority") which is established by the Government of Maharashtra.
-
In the said Petition, it is pointed out that the BMC issued notices to the Petitioner alleging that eight sheds were illegal and therefore, the same will be demolished. The Petitioner replied to the notice by pointing out that the sheds were legal. It is alleged that in October 2005 and in March 2006, an area of about 400 sq.meters out of the land in lawful possession of the Petitioner was acquired/excavated. The Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2825 of 2006 seeking compensation on account of the act of the Respondents of taking over possession of his land. The Petitioner is relying upon the order dated 16th January, 2007 which disposed of the said Petition along with Writ Petition No. 2772 of 2006 (filed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2398 of 2013). The material part of the order dated 16th January, 2007 reads thus:
2. The Petitioners claim to have storage godowns on a parcel of land which is on the bank of Mithi River and they are supposed to be in the stretch between C.S.T. Bridge at Vakola and Powai Lake. Their grievance is that part of their structures is removed and the land is excavated. This is essentially for the widening of the Mithi River whose water course is to be maintained properly. This has become necessary in view of the floods which took place on 26th July, 2005. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are taking necessary steps in that behalf in view of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2116 of 2005.
3. Grievance of the Petitioners is, as stated above, that part of their structures is removed, land is excavated and they are not being given compensation. It is also their case that whatever has been done is without due process of law. The actions, which have been taken, are in view of urgent requirement. The only thing that we can say is that the Petitioners may produce photocopies of their documents of title to the authority concerned. They should as well make available the originals for inspection. On the authority being satisfied that the Petitioners do have any genuine claim, undoubtedly they are expected to be compensated. The Petitioners may tender the documents and offer inspection within about 2 weeks from today. They should offer them to Respondent No. 3 - MRDPA which may forward those documents to whichever is the authority which is in-charge of the necessary steps. We expect the concerned authority to proceed expeditiously and to see to it that the Petitioners are compensated in accordance with the law.
The third Respondent in the said Writ Petition was the said Authority. A direction was issued under the said order to the said Authority to ensure that the Petitioner is compensated in accordance with law.
-
The Petitioner relied upon the subsequent correspondence made by him with various Authorities. The Petitioner is relying upon a joint survey. The Petitioner is also relying upon the order dated 30th January, 2014 in the present Petition as well as the subsequent order dated 30th July, 2015. The first prayer in the Petition is for directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner market value compensation for area of 400 square meters of land acquired for the purposes of Mithi River. There is also a prayer made seeking injunction against the Respondents restraining them from acting upon the notice dated 16th March, 2015 and from excavating or acquiring any part of the lands held by the Petitioner. In the present Petition, on 30th January, 2014, an ad-interim order was made in terms of paragraph 3 which reads thus:-
3. In the meanwhile, in view of the averments made in para 33, the Petitioner is still waiting for compensation since long, we are inclined to observe that the officers of Respondent No. 2 before taking any action on the property claiming to be owned by the Petitioner, one weeks' notice be given to the Petitioner before taking any action of demolition of sheds and excavation.
-
There was a further order made by this Court in this Petition along with the connected Petitions. Clause 1 to 3 of the said order read thus:-
-
We have perused the order dated 15th June, 2015. There is an affidavit filed by S.K. Salimath, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, on behalf of the State Government. To the said affidavit, a copy of Government Resolution dated 29th June, 2015 has been annexed. The Government Resolution provides that for different areas, Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority shall be the Competent Authorities to do the work of land acquisition and rehabilitation of the project affected persons etc.
-
In the light of the Government Resolution...
To continue reading
Request your trial