Disposed

Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi Seva Sangh (Regd.) Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Mar 2009WP/2492/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a writ petition pending against an interlocutory order rejecting a witness examination request. The court held that the competent authority (Deputy Collector) must enquire into the authorization status of the structures. Upon receiving an assurance from the authority to conduct enquiries, the court restored matters to the quasi-judicial authority, effectively wi

What did the court decide?

The pending suit and writ petition were disposed of after accepting the Deputy Collector's assurance to enquire into the status of 79 structures.

Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi Seva Sangh (Regd.)… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2492 OF 2009

¶4

 Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi
 Seva Sangh (Regd.) Association ...Petitioners

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr.S.A.Sawant i/b B.K.Barve & Co. for Petitioners.

¶8

 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶9

 Mr.P.S.Pednekar, Naib-Tahasildar (ENC), Dharavi is
 present in Court.

¶10

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶11

 MARCH 17, 2009.

¶12

 P.C.

¶13

 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the

¶14

 interlocutory order passed by the Court below
 rejecting the request of the Plaintiffs to permit
 them to examine other Plaintiffs besides Plaintiff
 No.2 as Plaintiffs’ witness.

¶15

 2. During the course of hearing, it was

¶16

 suggested to the Counsel appearing for the parties
 that the question whether the respective suit

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 structures (in all 79 in number) standing on the
 disputed property is authorised or unauthorised is
 a matter which can be enquired into by the Deputy
 Collector (Encroachment) who is the competent
 Authority. He will have to give sufficient
 opportunity to the concerned noticees/occupants to
 produce relevant documents in support of their
 stand that the structure occupied by them is
 authorised or otherwise.

¶19

 3. Needless to observe that if the structures
 are found to be put up after 1st January 1995, the
 same may not be protected in terms of Government
 Resolution dated 11th July 2001. According to the
 Plaintiffs, the structure even if put up after 1st
 January 1995 may be protected in terms of
 Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2008. The
 Deputy Collector, however, contends that the latter
 circular applies to Slum Rehabilitation Schemes and
 not in respect of encroachments on Government land
 after 1st January 1995. That is a matter which
 will have to be addressed by the competent
 Authority. As a matter of fact, if the Competent
 Authority was to examine the stand taken by the

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 respective Plaintiffs, case by case, on the basis
 of the documents to be relied upon by them in
 respect of concerned suit structure, nothing would
 survive for consideration in the Suit filed by the
 Plaintiffs before the City Civil Court which is
 essentially for relief of injunction. In that
 case, no triable issue will be left in the said
 Suit.

¶22

 4. Indeed, if the decision of the Deputy
 Collector was to be adverse to all or any of the
 Plaintiffs, the Deputy Collector will have to
 maintain status-quo for a period of two weeks from
 the date of service of such adverse order, so that
 the concerned occupant/noticee would be free to
 question the correctness of the decision before
 appropriate forum. This arrangement would meet the
 ends of justice. The Plaintiffs are willing to
 abide by this arrangement.

¶23

 5. The representative of Deputy Collector,
 who is present in Court assures that the Deputy
 Collector will start enquiry into each of these
 case after 28th May 2009 as soon as he is free from

¶24

 : 4 :

¶25

 the election duty and conclude the enquiry in all
 the 79 cases by end of June 2009. That assurance
 is accepted. Accordingly, nothing would survive in
 the pending Suit as well as this Petition. The
 assurance given on behalf of the competent
 Authority and the concerned Respondents that till
 such decision is taken, no precipitative action
 will be taken in respect of the respective
 structure claimed to be in occupation of the
 concerned Plaintiffs is accepted.

¶26

 6. Needless to observe that the Deputy
 Collector will have to consider all issues raised
 in the Suit by the respective Plaintiffs on its own
 merits in accordance with law. The Petitioners
 through Counsel assure to take steps to withdraw
 the Suit pending before the Trial Court in the
 light of observations made in this order.

¶27

 7. It will be open to the Respondents to
 apply to the Trial Court to formally dispose of the
 Suit on the above terms. This arrangement will
 obviate lengthy trial, which is avoidable.

¶28

 : 5 :

¶29

 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶30

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi Seva Sangh (Regd.) Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi Seva Sangh (Regd.) Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Narayan Dhole and Ors. Vs Arjun Narayan Dhole

Ibrahim Bandu Shaikh (Decd.)by Lrs. - Khatunbi Noormohamad Inamdar (Decd.)by Lrs.-Mubarak N.Inamdar Vs Ramat Hanif Shaikh (Decd.)by Lrs.-Baby Mirasaheb Mutani and Ors.

Anant Parisa Karve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Rustom Behramji Colah(Decd.) - Dr.Aspi Framroze Golwala and Ors. Vs M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Smt. Shantabai Jagannath Patil and Others Vs Shri Mohanlal Manikchand Binaykiya

Rajaram Ramdular Sharma Vs Subhash Baburao Alulkar and Anr.