Bombay High Court
Shree Sanjay Gandhi Seva Samiti & ... vs Mun.Corpn. Of Gr.Mumbai & Ors on 21 August, 2017
Bench: A.S. Oka
wp.1369.02.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1369 OF 2002
1. Shree Sanjay Gandhi Seva Samiti )
a Society registered under the )
Societies Registration Act, having its )
office at Anand Nagar, Link Road, )
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai - 400 102. )
2. Premchand Vishwakarma )
Member of Adarsh Rehvasi Sangh )
residing at Anand Nagar, Link Road, )
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai - 400 102. ) .... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater )
Mumbai, a Corporation incorporated under )
the Bombay Municipal Corporation act, )
having its Head Office at Mahapalika )
Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, )
Mumbai - 400 001 )
2. Shri. Ashok Biderker, Asstt. Municipal )
Commissioner, (Ward Officer) )
K/West Ward, Municipal Corporation )
of Greater Mumbai, having its office at S.V. )
Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 058 )
3. Shri. K.S. Joshi, Sr. Colony Officer, )
Bombay Municipal Corporation, )
Western Suburban Area, K/W Ward, )
Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 058. )
4. Shri. Tansare, Colony Officer, B.M.C. )
C/o. Ward Office, K/W Ward, )
Bombay Municipal Corporation, )
Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400 058 )
Sneha Chavan 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 02:16:31 :::
wp.1369.02.doc
5. Smt. Sharda Khanvilkar, )
Rent Collector, C/o. Ward Office, )
K/W Ward, Bombay Municipal Corporation,)
Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 058. ) ... Respondents
-------
Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav for the Petitioners.
Ms. Pallavi Thakar for the Respondents.
CORAM : A. S. OKA &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RESERVED:21/06/2017
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 21/08/2017
:JUDGEMENT: (PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J)
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
2. The first Petitioner Society has invoked the writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India in order to seek allotment of
pitches to its members as per the decision of this Court in Writ Petition
No. 2547 of 1993 and for the other consequential reliefs.
3. The first Petitioner has come with a case that it is a registered
society of occupants of Anand Nagar hutments, established on 17 th
January, 1981. There are 39 members of the society. The Petitioner No.
2 had filed W. P. No. 682 of 1996 in the capacity as a member of Adarsh
Rehvasi Vikas Sangh. The said petition came to be allowed and the
members were allowed to erect temporary structures over the pitches
Sneha Chavan 2/7
wp.1369.02.doc
as they were in existence since prior to cut-off date i.e. 01 st November,
1995. The Ward Officer, K/W ward and the other officers did not
comply with the said order. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed
against the said officer, where upon the rent receipts came to be issued
for the alternate hutments. Inventory list of 686 families came to be
prepared. Demolition work was undertaken by the officer of the Ward
Office. A. M. C. (B) issued order dated 23 rd April, 1994. However, those
directions have also not been complied with. Members of the first
petitioner have been residing in Anand Nagar hutment since prior to
1977-78, which has been declared as a slum by the Deputy Collector
and the Competent Authority on 20th December, 1985. It has been
notified in the Gazette dated 02nd January, 1986. An order came to be
passed by Hon'ble State Minister of Urban Development on 23 rd April,
1994 regarding the demolition of unauthorized construction and re-
allotment of pitches. Thereafter, fire broke out in Anand Nagar on 26 th
March, 1996. An offence came to be lodged in respect of the said
incident. Members of the first petitioner society are residing there since
many years. The Government of Maharashtra introduced a Slum
Redevelopment Scheme (in short 'said Scheme') under which an
occupant residing in the slum prior to 01 st January, 1995 whose name is
shown in electoral roll/ration card was protected and held entitled to
free accommodation under the said Scheme. Members of the first
petitioner are entitled to the benefit and the structures occupied by
them are required to be protected. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation
officials were threatening to carry out mass demolition without
adopting due process of law and therefore, some of the occupants had
filed Writ Petition No. 2547 of 1993 before this Court. Certain
Sneha Chavan 3/7
wp.1369.02.doc
directions came to be issued to the Municipal Corporation officials in
the said writ petition. Some occupants have leveled the plot with their
expenses and some are still without pitches and rent receipts. Notice
under Sections 351 and 354-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Act (for short 'BMC Act' ) were issued on 23 rd October, 2001. Some of
the occupants have been allotted correct pitches and proper rent
receipts. However, proper rent receipts have not been issued to some of
the occupants. A notice of motion came to be filed in order to get the
orders of this Court implemented. A statement came to be made on
behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the petitioners have been put
in possession of respective pitches. In pursuance of the said statement,
the said notice of motion came to be disposed of. Some structures were
partially demolished and the occupants therein continued to occupy
those huts. Another Writ Petition No. 682 of 1996 came to be filed and
thereafter, the Municipal Corporation was directed to evict 37
encroachers named in the report of the Commissioner. It was directed
that they should be allotted 10' x 10' alternate pitches with liberty to
them to erect temporary structures. Oral assurance was given by the
Municipal Corporation officials that their structures will not be
demolished. However, still the threat is persistent. Municipal
Corporation officials are refusing to allot alternate pitches or give equal
area on some other plot. There are 14 such members of the first
petitioner who are entitled to get the benefit of the scheme. They were
amongst the 686 persons from the inventory list, who were held to be
eligible. Hence, this petition has been filed for appropriate directions.
4. Affidavit in reply has been filed by one Shri. Vishwanath
Sneha Chavan 4/7
wp.1369.02.doc
Tanksali, Colony Officer in the employment of the first Respondent. He
has stated that Anand Nagar is reserved for allotment of alternative
sites to the project affected persons on Municipal lands. The project
affected persons from G/South ward, P/North ward and others are
allotted pitches in Anand Nagar Slum colony. A list of hutment dwellers
was prepared in 1988 after taking actual inventory on the site.
Demolition was carried out by the first Respondent in 1994. Orders
were passed in respect of 686 dwellers. Respondent had taken steps to
allot pitches to the hutment dwellers by passing rent receipts. A report
was submitted to this Court. The Government has declared the policy to
tolerate the hutments prior to 01st January, 1995 and therefore, the
work of allotment of pitches was disturbed. Now, Anand Nagar Colony
is totally encroached upon by the hutment dwellers, by those who are
having rent receipts from the first Respondent as well as by those who
are not having rent receipts as per the policy. Many dwellers from the
list of 686 have sold out their pitches. It is difficult to verify the
authenticity of such persons. It has also been stated that the first
Respondent will consider those cases which are covered by present
policy and further action of demolition or otherwise will be taken.
5. Point of controversy is narrow here. There is no dispute about the
policy of the Government. The first Respondent does not dispute its
responsibility to verify and give benefits under the policy to those
persons who are covered by the policy. Various orders have been passed
from time to time by this Court when the issues were raised in the
previous writ petitions.
Sneha Chavan 5/7
wp.1369.02.doc
6. The controversy is in respect of 14 dwellers, who are stated to be
entitled to get alternate pitches. Further, it stated that there are 21
dwellers whose names are appearing in the list, but actual allotment of
pitches has not been done. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the first
Respondent is vague and does not address to the main issue. When
policy and responsibility has been admitted, it ought to have been
specifically stated on oath as to whether there is total compliance of the
earlier orders of this Court or not and whether the policy of the
Government has been implemented in its true spirit or not. The writ
petition can be disposed of by giving certain directions. Hence, we
proceed to pass following order :-
O R D E R
1. The Municipal Commissioner of the first Respondent shall
appoint a responsible officer to look into the grievances made by the
petitioners;
2. The said officer shall call those 14 hutment dwellers, whose
names have been set out in list "Ex. J", in respect of whom the
Petitioners have made a grievance and ascertain whether pitches have
been allotted to them and whether actual possession thereof has been
given to them;
3. After collecting the said data, the said 14 persons or any of them
who have not been alloted pitches shall be allotted the pitches as per
the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2547 of 1993. This
Sneha Chavan 6/7
wp.1369.02.doc
exercise shall be completed within three months from the date on
which this order is uploaded;
4. The concerned officer appointed by Municipal Commissioner
shall verify whether 21 persons/ dwellers whose names have been set
out in list "Ex. K" to the petition have been allotted pitches. If it is
found that pitches have not been allotted to them, then pitches be
allotted to them within a period of 3 months from the date on which
this order is uploaded;
5. Compliance be reported accordingly by filing an affidavit within
three months from today;
6. Writ Petition is disposed of on above terms.
7. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)
Sneha Chavan 7/7
