Dismissed

Khandu Baban Ghadge and 40 Anr. v. M/S Revathi Construction

Bombay HC13 Jul 2012APP/214/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal filed by original plaintiffs against an interim order vacating a multifarious injunction. The court held that the absence of title deeds prevented the establishment of ownership necessary for a title-based suit, rejecting the request for a stay.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The request for stay of the order is rejected.

Khandu Baban Ghadge and 40 Anr. Vs M/S Revathi… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

appl(l)351.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL (L) NO.351 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011 IN SUIT (L) NO.2960 OF 2011

¶8

… Khandu Baban Ghadge & ors. ...Appellants v/s. M/s.Revathi Construction & ors. ...Respondents …

¶9

Mr.J.S.Kini with Mr.Suresh Dubey & S.G.Mahamuni for Appellants. Mr.S.G.Surana for Respondent No.2. Mr.Uttangale i/b G.D.Uttangle & co. for S.R.A. Mr.Niranjan Pandit AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 13 July 2012.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The appellants , who are the original plaintiffs, had taken out a notice of motion in suit (L) no.2960 of 2011 praying for an order of injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit property. The interim order which was granted in the notice of motion was vacated by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence, the appellants are in appeal before us.

1 of 1

kambli

appl(l)351.12

The appellants had filed the suit (L) No.2960 of 2011 praying for declaration that the appellants are the sole owners of the suit plot of land consisting of two chawls named as 'P.D.Mhaske Chawl' having 40 rooms/structures. A further declaration was sought that the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 have not acquired any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property by virtue of conveyance dated 30 January 2009. The appellants, inter alia, sought an order of injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit property.

¶18

In the notice of motion taken out by the appellants before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge initially granted an adinterim relief in favour of the appellants by order dated 8 August 2011, which relief was continued for some time. The motion was placed before the learned trial judge on 18 April 2012, when it was agreed that the appellants' property will be developed by respondent No.1 (Revathi construction), and at the first instance the respondent No.1 will pay a lump-sum consideration of Rs.1.24 crores to the appellants/plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge noted the suggestions of the respondent No.1 that at the first instance the 12 structures, which were falling within the purview of slum rehabilitation scheme would be vacated and the respondent No.1 will demolish the structures and the other structures would be demolished phase-wise. The learned trial Judge also noted that the parties had agreed that the settlement must provide that all the appellants whose structures would be demolished in the slum rehabilitation scheme would be given temporary accommodation or compensation. The learned trial Judge after noting the agreement between the parties in his order dated 18 April 2012 adjourned the matter to 25 April 2012. On 25 April 2012, at the request of the

2 of 2

kambli

appl(l)351.12

advocate for the appellants, the matter was further adjourned. On 9 May 2012, when the matter was placed before the learned trial Judge, the appellants backed out from the settlement. The learned trial Judge proceeded to dispose of the motion recording that save and except 12 persons who were named as plaintiffs in the suit, no documents of title were produced. Holding that the suit of the appellants was based on title, in absence of any documents showing their titles as owners of the suit property, no injunction could have been granted, the learned trial Judge by the impugned order vacated the interim reliefs granted in favour of the appellants and disposed of the motion.

¶24

When the appeal was placed before us on 14 June 2012, we suggested to the appellants to approach the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to find a way out in the matter since the appellants were unable to produce any documents of title from their earlier owners in support of their claim. Pursuant to the suggestion, the SRA heard the appellants and has filed a report of the hearing. The learned counsel for the SRA points out that no proposal for slum rehabilitation scheme on private land can be accepted from any person without registered documents establishing their title to the property. The learned counsel for the SRA submits that this requirement is a mandatory requirement, as the SRA cannot undertake project on private land without the consent of the true owner.

3 of 3

kambli

appl(l)351.12

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants have failed to produce clear title documents from their predecessor-in-title (except in the case of 12 plaintiffs) and unless such documents are obtained they cannot establish their title to the suit land. In absence of such title deeds, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge in not granting an order of injunction in favour of the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1-developer has reiterated the undertaking that the developer is ready to accommodate the appellants whose structures will be affected by the slum rehabilitation scheme by shifting them to the transit accommodation and/or to pay compensation in lieu of the transit accommodation. It is obvious that the plaintiffs/appellants cannot seek injunction and hold up the redevelopment scheme without producing adequate title deeds on record showing their claims as owner of the property, more particularly when the suit is based on title.

¶30

By order dated 29 November 2011, the learned single Judge appointed the city survey officer to demarcate the lands- (i) land purchased by defendant No.1 from Bai Zaverbai Purshottam Nathu Charitable Trust; and (ii) lands alleged to have been purchased by plaintiffs from the said trust. The city survey officer was directed to demarcate the lands after giving reasonable notice addressed to the plaintiffs' advocate and the advocate for the first defendant and any other party that the city survey officer may deed fit. The parties were also asked to furnish any other documents that the city survey officer may require.

4 of 4

kambli

appl(l)351.12

In his survey/demarcation plan dated 23 January 2012 of the city survey officer, Ghatkopar, the city survey officer has certified that the disputed 12 structures (claim to be of the ownership of 12 out of 40 plaintiffs) are within the land owned by defendant No.1.

¶36

According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are , thus, occupying the land admeasuring 253 sq.meters owned by defendant No.1. Having regard to the fact that it was after survey of the land by the city survey officer in presence of some of the plaintiffs and their learned advocates and in presence of defendants Nos. 1 & 2, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be restrained from redeveloping the properties on the land in question admeasuring 253 sq.meters. As a matter of fact out of 12 plaintiffs, 3 plaintiffs have already given consent in writing for redevelopment of their property.

¶37

It is pertinent to note that even though ad-interim injunction has been vacated by the learned single Judge, out of 40 rooms 28 rooms are not at all affected as they do not fall within the land belonging to defendant No.1 and only 12 structures are to be found on the land belonging to defendant No.1. All those 12 persons will get transit accommodation/compensation during the period of redevelopment and thereafter all 12 of them will get permanent accommodation.

¶38

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, insisted that all the 40 plaintiffs would like to have their properties redeveloped simultaneously.

5 of 5

appl(l)351.12

kambli

In view of the above, it will be open to all concerned parties to move the State Government for acquiring the land on which the above 28 structures are situated under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.&R) Act, 1971. After such representation is made, the concerned authority will decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶44

12. Subject to above directions, the appeal is dismissed.

¶45

The learned counsel for the appellants prays for stay of operation of this order for some time.

¶46

Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.2developer has already stated before the learned trial Judge that 12 persons whose tenements will be demolished will be given compensation or transit accommodation and thereafter permanent alternate accommodation as a part of the scheme sanctioned by SRA, we see no justification to grant stay of the operation of this order. Request for stay is, therefore, rejected.

¶47

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶49

6 of 6

Khandu Baban Ghadge and 40 Anr. v. M/S Revathi Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khandu Baban Ghadge and 40 Anr. v. M/S Revathi Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Dattatraya Ganpat Gaikwad and Ors. Vs Sunita Devi Singhaniya Hospital and Medical Research Centre

Mcs Ltd., Vs Punjab National Bank.

Sujata Gopal Sugand and Kanhaiyalal Gopal Sugand Vs Shanti and Daya D/O.Shewaram Basamal Sugand

Pansn Construction and Developers Private Limited Vs Girish Vrajlal Sheth

Shri Avinash Vishwasrao Patil and Ors. Vs Navjeevan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadet and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Purnima Rajesh Parikh and Ors.