Disposed

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2014PIL/165/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding CRZ-II lands in Thane where illegal filling and toilet construction allegedly obstructed a nalla, the bench held no reason to entertain the petition upon satisfaction that recovery and attachment proceedings had been initiated by authorities regarding the alleged illegal excavation, directing petitioners to follow due process for any further complaints.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of accepting the assurance given by the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding ongoing recovery and auction proceedings.

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and Anr. Vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2014)

1/6

PIL165-11.12

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.165 OF 2009

¶7

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and others

¶8

...Petitioners.

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Maharashtra and others

¶11

..Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Nikung Mehta with Ms. Shalaka Mali i/b Ashok Purohit & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶13

Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶14

Ms. Pooja Singh i/b Mr. N.R. Bubna for Respondent No.5.

¶15

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶16

11^th December, 2014.

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the First to Fourth Respondents.

¶19

This PIL concerns lands more particularly described in paragraph 3 of the Petition situated at Uttan Patanbunder, Taluka Uttan, District Thane. It is stated in the Petition that the lands specified in paragraph 3 are falling in CRZ-II. It is pointed out that there is a nalla which leads to the sea which passes through the said lands.

¶20

There is an allegation made in the Petition that in April

2/6

PIL165-11.12

PNP

2009, it was noticed that anti social elements had grabbed lands in question and had started filling of earth on the said lands. In paragraph 8 of the Petition, it is alleged that illegal work has been commenced by the land grabbers. It is pointed out that construction work of toilets has been started by the Fifth Respondent (Mira Bhayender Municipal Corporation) in such a manner that the size of the nalla has been considerably reduced, which will obstruct the free flow of water into the sea. The substantive prayer made in this Petition is prayer clause (a) which reads thus :

¶25

“(a) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing respondents to make the enquiry in respect of the subject land and the illegal filling of the earth by the land grabbers anti-social elements and after verifying the correct and true facts this Hon'ble Court may please be direct the respondents to remove the soil from the land upon which the anti-social elements have filled the earth.”

¶26

By the order dated 11^th April, 2014 this Court directed the Collector to nominate an officer to visit the site and to submit a report. Accordingly, the Collector appointed Shri Jagatsing Girase, Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane to visit the site. He has filed

3/6

PIL165-11.12

PNP

an affidavit dated 13^th August, 2014 which records that he belatedly visited the site on 31^st July, 2014 when chairman of the First Petitioner was present along with the others. It appears that during the said visit for the first time, a grievance was made by the Petitioners as regards the construction carried out on the land bearing Survey No.295 which is not the subject matter of this Petition. It was contended that by destruction of mangroves, illegal construction has been carried out which has affected the natural flow of nalla.

¶31

The Sub-Divisional Officer has stated that public toilets have been constructed by MMRDA under Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and that the said public toilets have been constructed in place of earlier existing toilets. He has further stated that as far as Survey No.74/7, Survey No.69 (Part) B, Survey No.43 (Part) B and Survey No.69 (Part) A are concerned, illegal excavation of soil has been made by Amir Gafar Shaikh and Liyakat Gafar Shaikh. The affidavit records that an action has been initiated against the said persons for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,60,773/-. There is a rejoinder filed by the Second Petitioner dealing with the said affidavit which contains mere denials. As photographs were not

4/6

PIL165-11.12

PNP

annexed to the earlier affidavit, another affidavit dated 4^th December, 2014 has been filed by Shri Jagatsing Girase to which photographs have been annexed. Today, another affidavit is tendered by the said officer to which two photographs have been annexed. The affidavit dated 4^th December, 2014 records that Tahsildar has not only issued a notice of recovery of Rs.37,60,773/-, but has also passed an order of attachment on 20^th August, 2014 thereby creating charge on the lands held by the wrongdoers by making an entry in the record of rights. There is an assurance recorded therein that approximately within a period of 16 weeks, auction of the attached property will be conducted and the amount will be recovered.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that there are large scale illegal constructions going on in the area. He submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer visited the site on 31^st July, 2014 when there were very heavy rains in the area. He submitted that if the nalla is inspected now, true picture will emerge. The size of the nalla will show whether it has been reduced and where it is obstructing free flow of water into the sea.

5/6

PIL165-11.12

PNP

In the first affidavit of Shri Jagatsing Girase, it is specifically stated that in place of existing toilets, new toilets have been constructed by MMRDA. There is nothing placed on record to show that the said stand is erroneous. As of today, there is no material on record to show that the size of nalla has been reduced. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in the affidavit filed by Shri Girase he has relied upon a report submitted by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation. He submitted that a copy of the said report has not been furnished to the Petitioners. The learned AGP states that he will handover a copy of the said report to the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners during the course of the day.

¶41

Hence, as of today, we see no reason to entertain this Petition. We accept the assurance given by Shri Jagatsing Girase in paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 4^th December, 2014. It is obvious that the action initiated for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,60,773/- will have to be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶42

If according to the case of the Petitioners, some illegal

6/6

PIL165-11.12

PNP

constructions have been made, it is for them to make a representation to the Respondent No.5. If such a representation is made, the Fifth Respondent is bound to consider the same in accordance with law. If the Petitioners are in possession of any material to show that while constructing new toilets, an obstruction has been created to natural flow of nalla, it is for them to make a representation to the Fifth Respondent which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶47

Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of.

¶48

(A.S. Oka, J.)

¶49

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and Anr. v. 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

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devichand Yadavrao Bobade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Basavraj Manmathappa Nagthane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Hrishikesh Rajendra Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinayak Alias Nandkumar Bapurao Santan Vs the Tahsildar Mahur and Ors.

Shri Pratap R. Yadav Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Anil Mohanlal Kankriya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Corporation Limited, through Authorised Signatory, Shri. Prakash Shamrao Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Limited, through Authorised Signatory, Shri. Prakash Shamrao Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Shri. Dagadu Nanu Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd, through Manager, S. D. Telvekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Dept and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and Ors. Vs Deputy General Manager / Complaint Redressal Officer, Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Sangli and Ors.

Mr. Dwaranand Daman Dicholkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.