Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2012WP/689/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Chief Engineer of MCGM lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the question of title between petitioners and Minar Enterprises. The Court set aside the observations in the impugned order that purported to decide the title. The issue of illegality of conveyances was also found to be triable only by a civil court.

What did the court decide?

The observations in the impugned order deciding the question of title and holding conveyances illegal were set aside. Rule made absolutely.

Ashok Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs Municipal Corpn. for… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

WP 689.11

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 689 OF 2011

¶7

Ashok Kumar Shukla and Ors. ... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr. A.V. Anturkar alongwith Ms. Anjali Awasthi for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate alogn wtih Ms. Vidya Gharpure for respondent B.M.C.

¶13

Mr. R.A. Dada, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms. Sarita Dahiwile and Mr. Rampal S. Kohli for respondent no. 6.

¶14

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & R.D. DHANUKA,JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, , 2012

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶17

The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Chief Engineer of M.C.G.M. dated 24th February, 2011 observing on the basis of the

¶18

registered conveyances, that the properties in question claimed by the

¶19

petitioners are in fact conveyed to M/s. Minar Enterprises, in other

¶20

words the Chief Engineer has held that M/s. Minar Enterprises is the

¶21

WP 689.11

¶22

hvn 2

¶23

owner of the property in question. The dispute centers around a piece of land admeasuring 4442.70 sq. mtrs. out of C.T.S. No. 210/1, 2, 43, 14 to 16 and 18 to 32 of Revenue village Bandivali, Taluka Andheri. The aforesaid piece of land was acquired by the Municipal Corporation for a public purpose. The acquisition proceedings were completed and respondent Minar Enterprises handed over possession of the land to the Corporation in the year 2007 and received extra TDR on FSI in lieu of compensation. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have received compensation and utilized TDR since according to petitioners, they are the owners of the suit property which has been inherited by them from their ancestors. It is the case of the respondent Minar Enterprises, on the other hand, that the property was conveyed in two lots by said Krishnakumar and his brothers Ramakant, Girijashankar and Devendrakumar by executing 4 deeds, 2 executed in the year 1992 and 2 in the year 2007 and that Minar Enterprises has been put in peaceful possession of the property.

¶24

It appears that the petitioners approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2010 and made a prayer to this court that they would like to make appropriate representation to the Corporation for

¶25

WP 689.11

¶26

hvn 3

¶27

allotting alternate land/structure/compensation. The Court considered it appropriate to grant the said prayer after verification whether the petitioners had valid title on the basis of which any relief can be granted to the petitioners. This Court took note of the contention on behalf of the petitioners that they were claiming ownership rights in the land but specifically declined to express any opinion. After this order was made by this Court on 22nd December, 2010, the Chief Engineer in compliance has passed the impugned order dated 24th February, 2011. The Chief Engineer has indeed carried out directions of this court for verification of the documents of title but has apparently gone further and appears to have decided the question of title by observing that the property has been conveyed to M/s Minar Enterprises and further that the petitioner's claim for alternate land/structure/compensation cannot be considered in the absence of any right or title in their favour. The exact words in the order of the Chief Engineer are as follows :

¶28

"On perusal of the various registered conveyances in favour of M/s. Minar Enterprises and other relevant documents, it is seen that the property/ies claimed by the Petitioners are conveyed to M/s. Minar Enterprises.

WP 689.11

hvn

O R D E R

In view of the above, the representation made by the Petitioners for the alternate land/structure/compensation cannot be considered in absence of any right title in their favour."

¶34

Mr. Dada, the learned counsel for M/s. Minar Enterprises submits that the order cannot be construed as having decided the question of title since the observations of the Chief Engineer are only based on verification of the documents of title and the Chief Engineer has merely observed that the title stands conveyed. The submission of the learned counsel indeed cannot be rejected outright. However, it appears from the observations that the Chief Engineer has very categorically asserted that the title has been conveyed to M/s. Minar Enterprises and that there is no right or title in favour of the petitioners. In our view, to the extent that the said observations appear to have decided the question of title, they are without jurisdiction since the Chief Engineer or even the Municipal Corporation for that matter does not have right to decide the question of title. In the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to set aside the observations to the extent that the petitioners do not have any right or title in the land and the land has been absolutely conveyed

¶35

WP 689.11

¶36

hvn 5

¶37

to respondents. Indeed, the petitioners are agitating a question of title and for which the petitioners have no remedy other than to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the title which they may do.

¶38

The order to the extent it holds that the conveyances in favour of M/s. Minar Enterprises are illegal or invalid suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, since that issue will have to be decided by the appropriate civil court. The order is accordingly set aside.

¶39

Rule made absolutely in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶40

(R.D. DHANUKA,J.) (S.A. BOBDE,J.)

Ashok Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. for Greater Mumbai 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

Keshavlal Najibhai Chawda Vs Vasant Patil and Anr.

Pratibha Subash Babul and 19 Ors. Vs Lakhamchand Mathure and Anr.

Tisha Ramu Rai and 24 Ors. Vs Lakhamchand Mathure and Anr.

M/s. Green Oak Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Raghunath B. Sonawale and 2 Ors. Vs Vice Presidents Maharashtra Hsg. Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.

Shakti Sra Co-Operative Housing Society and Anr. Vs Slum Rehabilitaiton Authority and 4 Ors.