Disposed

Vallabh Damodhar Jhaveri v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Deputy Collector and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2019WP/2396/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of five writ petitions challenging the demolition of structures under a road widening scheme. The Court held it does not rule on rehabilitation eligibility, directing the Appellate Authority to decide pending appeals within six weeks so the public project proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals without delay, within six weeks of the order date.

Vallabh Damodhar Jhaveri Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

601-ASWP8867-19+.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8867 OF 2019

¶4

Narendra Hassanand Jethwani
Versus

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through Dy Collector
(Encroachment & Removal) Mumbai & Ors...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶9

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2374 OF 2019

¶10

Sunil Naraindas Mulchandani...Petitioner
Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶14

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2377 OF 2019

¶15

Vallabh Damodhar Jhaveri
Versus

¶16

The State of Maharashtra through its Deputy
Collector & Ors

¶17

...Petitioner

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

WITH

¶20

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶21

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2382 OF 2019

¶22

Shivkumar Dilomal Madhyan...Petitioner

¶23

Page 1 of 4 29th August 2019

¶24

601-ASWP8867-19+.DOC

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

WITH

¶29

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶30

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2383 OF 2019

¶31

Mohandas Parmanand Sadra...Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

Dr Uday P Warunjikar, with Ms Ms Heena Rathor, ib Kulkarni &
Associates, for the Petitioner in all Petitions.
Mr VM Mali, AGP, for Respondent No. 1-State in ASWP/8867/19.
Mr J Reis, Special Counsel, with Mr Vinod Mahadik, for MCGM.
Mr J Reis, Special Counsel, with Ms Rupali Adhate, for MCGM.
Mrs Jyoti Chavan, AGP, for the Respodent-State in all Petitions
except ASWP/8867/19.

¶36

Mr Avinash Kambri, Sub-Engineer Maintenance, M/Ward, present.

¶37

CORAM: S. C. Dharmadhikari &
G. S. Patel, JJ.
DATED:29th August 2019

¶38

PC:-

¶39

1.These Petitions were mentioned in the morning session with
a request to take them urgently post recess simply because,
according to Mr Warunjikar, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioners, the Municipal Corporation is likely to demolish the
structures of the Petitioners to implement a road widening scheme
or project.

¶40

Page 2 of 4 29th August 2019

¶41

601-ASWP8867-19+.DOC

¶42

2.Prima facie, we do not fnd from the annexures of the Writ
Petition that the Petitioners have come before the regular line of
public street was prescribed. Prima facie, entry and in the structure
as well as the existence of the structure is post the prescription in
terms of Section 297 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
1888.

¶43

3.The law is therefore clear that if the road is earlier and the
shop is later, the shop must go and not the road. Realizing this
position, Mr Warunjikar says that the Petitioners are not seeking any
ad-interim or interim relief.

¶44

4.With the consent of the Petitioners, we have taken up the
Petitions for consideration.

¶45

5.All that the Petitioners’ request is that an Appeal to
determine their eligibility for permanent alternate accommodation
under a rehabilitation scheme devised by the Municipal
Corporation/State Government is pending.

¶46

6.The request is that this Appeal may be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible and depending upon the outcome of the
same the Petitioners be included in the rehabilitation scheme for
benefts on par with similarly situate structures/shops.

¶47

7.We have no hesitation in accepting this request but we clarify
that accepting the request to expedite the proceedings does not
mean that this Court ruled upon the eligibility of the Petitioners for

¶48

Page 3 of 4

¶49

29th August 2019

¶50

601-ASWP8867-19+.DOC

¶51

any package of rehabilitation or for grant of permanent alternate
accommodation to carry on their commercial activities. It is entirely
for the Municipal Corporation and the other authorities to
determine and decide the issue of the eligibility of the Petitioners.
This Court has neither mandated that the scheme of rehabilitation
being devised or if already devised should be implemented in such a
manner so as to include all the shops including that of the
Petitioners.

¶52

8.The Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of with a direction
that the Appellate Authority shall decide the Appeal as
expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six
weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶53

9.Once the writ petitions are disposed of with these directions,
there is no question of the Petitioners holding up the public project
of road widening. All the more when Mr Reis assures the Court that
all the shops (28 in number) which are afecting the road line would
be removed or demolished.

¶54

(S. C. Dharmadhikari, J)

¶55

(G. S. Patel, J)

¶56

Page 4 of 4 29th August 2019

Vallabh Damodhar Jhaveri v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Deputy Collector and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallabh Damodhar Jhaveri v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Deputy Collector and 2 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

R. Mangalam Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and 2 Ors.

Bvm Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Dhanvantari Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital through Administrative Officer Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga , Unani and Ors.

Varsha Devyan Gala Vs Tarun Pranlal Bajaria and 2 Ors.

Varsha Devyan Gala Vs Tarun Pranlal Bajaria and 2 Ors.

Sunil Naraindas Mulchandani Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others