Dismissed

Mr. Ramnath Kubar Singh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2013WP/2210/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging demolition proceedings under the Slum Area Act. The court held the second petition was not maintainable after prior litigation. It ordered immediate demolition of the structure by the Collector and directed expedited disposal of the related civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Collector directed to demolish the structure within two days; City Civil Court directed to decide the pending suit within six months.

Mr. Ramnath Kubar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

913.wp.2210.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2210 OF 2013

¶5

Mr.Ramnath Kubar Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr.Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr.A.N.Narula a/w. Mr.A.Dasgupta i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent No.4.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JULY 25, 2013.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent

¶15

No.4 and the learned AGP for State. By this Petition which is filed

¶16

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are

¶17

seeking the following reliefs :

a) Rule be issued.

1 / 7

Shraddha Talekar PA

913.wp.2210.13

b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the present case and after examining the legality and priority thereof the 2^nd impugned proceeding initiated by the respondent no.2/the Dy. Collector (ENC/Removal) and Competent Authority, Malad, u/Sec. 33/38 of the Maharashtra Slum Area ( I,C and R) Act, 1971 by its impugned order No. Dy. Collector /ENC/Removal/ Malad/ Kavi.175/2013 dated 28/2/2013 which is annexed to this writ petition at Exhibit -'A' be quashed and set aside.

¶23

c) Pending the hearing and final Disposal of the Present Writ Petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the 2^nd , impugned proceeding initiated by the respondent no.2/ the Dy. Collector (ENC/Removal) and Competent Authority, Malad, u/sec.33/38 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (I, C and R) Act, 1971 by its impugned order No.Dy. Collector /ENC/Removal/ Malad/ Kavi.175/2013 dated 28/2/2013 which is annexed to this writ petition at Exhibit -'A' ;

¶24

d) Interim /ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) above be granted;

¶25

e) This Writ Petition be allowed with costs;

¶26

f) Any Other Just and Proper Order Be Passed in the Interest of Justice.

¶27

2 The Deputy Collector has, by his letter dated 28.02.2013, asked the Petitioners to hand over vacant possession of their premises. After the Petitioners’ application was rejected by the

2 / 7

Shraddha Talekar PA

913.wp.2210.13

Deputy Collector, which order was confirmed in Appeal and the Writ Petition challenging the said order was dismissed by this Court in Writ Petition No.227 of 2012 dated 6^th October 2012. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the directions which were given by this Court in the order dated 6^th September 2012 have not been complied. Firstly, it is submitted that in the said Writ Petition this Court has directed that within two weeks after the said order, an agreement has to be executed with the parties and that thereafter the Petitioners were supposed to hand over the premises and shift to the transit accommodation. In the said order, a reference is also made that basic amenities will be provided to the Petitioners namely water connection and electricity connection etc.

¶32

3 After the impugned notice was given by the Deputy Collector dated 28.02.2013, the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the said notice. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, this Court had directed the Petitioners to handover vacant possession of the premises and shift to the transit accommodation. This Court by order dated 24^th June 2013 recorded the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that they are willing to shift to the transit camp accommodation on or

3 / 7

Shraddha Talekar PA

913.wp.2210.13

before 4^th July 2013. This Court has recorded that after the Petitioners shift to the transit camp accommodation, this Court would examine whether the conditions which are imposed by the learned Single Judge of this Court have been complied or not. On 19^th July 2013, the Petitioners appeared in person and submitted that they have vacated the premises and have handed over the keys of their tenements to the Collector. We are informed today that the Petitioners have taken possession of the transit camp accommodation but since the keys were not handed over to Respondents no.4, the said structure could not be demolished.

¶37

4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this Petition. He submitted that after the first round of litigation is over and the Petitioners’ Writ Petition was rejected by this Court, thereafter, this is a second round of litigation which is sought to be initiated by the Petitioners by filing a fresh Petition. It is submitted therefore that the second Petition is not maintainable. He then submitted that though undertakings have been given by the Petitioners in the first Writ Petition as well as in the second Writ Petition to this Court that they would vacate the premises, they have,

4 / 7

Shraddha Talekar PA

913.wp.2210.13

in fact, under the guise of handing over possession have taken possession of the alternate premises in the transit camp accommodation and have retained possession over the suit structures by claiming that they have sent the keys by courier to the Collector.

¶42

5 After having heard both the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Respondent No.4, in our view there is much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 about the maintainability of the second Petition. In our view, the Petitioners having lost right up to the High Court and this Court having directed the Petitioners to hand over the possession, they cannot now seek further orders protecting their possession. The Petition therefore is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we direct Respondent No.4 to give the Petitioners 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the electric meter which has to be installed by the Petitioners in the transit camp accommodation. The record indicates that the other facilities have

¶43

been provided in the transit camp accommodation. So far as the grievance of the Petitioners in respect of clauses 9 and 10 of the agreement are concerned they will sit with Respondent No.4 and

5 / 7

Shraddha Talekar PA

913.wp.2210.13

suitable alterations may be made in the said agreement. In this view of the matter, the grievances which have been raised by the Petitioners in this Petition have been adequately taken care of. By the earlier order, dated 6^th September 2010, the learned Single Judge had already observed that shifting of the Petitioners to the transit camp accommodation will be subject to the rights of the parties in respect of the Suit which they had already filed and is pending in the City Civil Court. Even that grievance of the Petitioners had been taken care of by the learned Single Judge.

¶48

6 In this view of the matter, the Petition does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. We direct the Collector to forthwith demolish the said structure in two days and if necessary by taking the help of police for that purpose.

¶49

7 It must be noted that though on the one hand a solemn assurance was given by the Petitioners to this Court that they would shift to the transit accommodation on or before 4^th July 2013, they took possession of the alternate accommodation but ensured that the said huts are not demolished on the specious plea that keys of the structure were sent to the Collector by courier. We must express our displeasure towards the conduct of the Petitioners in trying to

6 / 7

Shraddha Talekar PA

913.wp.2210.13

take this Court for a ride. However, we have ensured that Respondent No.4 complies the directions which are passed by the learned Single Judge in order dated 6^th September 2012.

¶54

8 Needless to state that the Suit which is pending in the City Civil Court shall be decided by the City Court on merits and in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observations

¶55

made by this Court in this Petition or by the earlier order which has been passed by this Court. The City Civil Court shall decide the Suit expeditiously. within six months from today.

¶56

[K. R. SHRIRAM, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶57

7 / 7

¶58

Shraddha Talekar PA

Mr. Ramnath Kubar Singh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramnath Kubar Singh and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Anant Dharma Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Shantaram Lahane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept or Revenue and Ors.

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No. 22, Pune and Ors.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through Superintending Engineer Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Corporation and Textile and Ors.

M/S. Vistas Network Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and Ors.