Bombay High Court
Shantaram Sakharam Ghadi (Since Decd ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 February, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:5789-DB
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13413 OF 2017
1. Shantaram Sakharam Ghadi, ]
(Since deceased through his legal heir) ]
1A. Smt. Anita Shantaram Ghadi, ]
Age: 58 years, Occ.: Household ]
Residing at Property No.821, ]
Behind Sharneshwar Mandir, ]
Panvel Tapal Naka, Panvel ]
District Raigad.
2. Madhukar Baburao Jagnade, ]
Age: 65 years, Occ.: Business ]
3. Vasant Sakharam Ghadi, ]
Age: 65 years, Occ.: Business ]
4. Parvtibai Dagadu Angre, ]
(Since deceased through her legal heir) ]
4A. Suresh Dagadu Angre, ]
Age: 58 years, Occ.: Business ]
5. Ramesh Gajanan Aarte, ]
(Since deceased through his legal heir) ]
5A. Kavita Ramesh Aarte, ]
Age: 29 years, Occ.: Business ]
Nos.2 to 5 are Shop at Property No.821, ]
Behind Sharneshwar Mandir, ]
Panvel Tapal Naka, Panvel ]
District Raigad. ] ... Petitioners
V/s.
ASHWINI
GAJAKOSH
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Digitally signed by
ASHWINI
GAJAKOSH
Through, Secretary Town Planning ]
Date: 2025.02.06
16:05:41 +0530
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
1/11
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 22:21:57 :::
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
2. Panvel Municipal Corporation ]
Through Commissioner, ]
Taluka Panvel, District Raigad ]
3. Ranchodji Devosthan Trust, ]
Through the Chief Trustee ]
Mr. Mahendra Yashwant Phake, ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant ]
Residing at House No.1679, ]
Takkagaon, Panvel ] ...Respondents.
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11643 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.13413 OF 2017
1. Suresh Dagadu Angre, ]
(Since deceased through legal heirs) ]
1a) Swati Suresh Angre ]
Age : 54 years, Occ: Household ]
1b) Sushant Suresh Angre ]
Age : 30 years, Occ.: Service ]
1c) Pratik Suresh Angre ]
Age : 25 years, Occ.: education ]
All R/at: Flat no. 102, B-wing, Gulmarg ]
Apartment, Plot no.270/4, ]
Near Bharat Gas, Uran Road, ]
Panvel - 410206 ] ... Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1. Shantaram Sakaram Ghadi ]
(since deceased through his legal heir) ]
1A. Anita Shantaram Ghadi ]
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household ]
2/11
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 22:21:57 :::
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
R/at. Property no. 821, ]
B/h. Sharneshwar Mandir, Panvel ]
Tapal Naka, Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ]
2. Madhukar Baburao Jagnade ]
Age: 65 Years, Occ: Business ]
3. Vasant Sakharam Ghadi ]
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business ]
4. Parvati Dagadu Angre ]
(since deceased through her legal heir) ]
4A. Suresh Dagadu Angre ]
Age: 58 years, Occ : Business ]
5. Ramesh Gajanan Aarte ]
(since deceased through his legal heir) ]
5A. Kavita Ramesh Aarte ]
Age: 29 years, Occ: Business ]
Nos. 2 to 5 are shop at Property no.821, ]
B/h. Sharneshwar Mandir, Panvel ]
Tapal Naka, Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Stat of Maharashtra ]
Through Secretary Town Planning ]
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
2. Panvel Municipal Corporation ]
Through Commissioner ]
Taluka Panvel. Dist. Raigad ]
3. Ranchodji Devocthan Trust ]
Through the Chief Trustee ]
Mr. Mahendra Yashwant Phake ]
3/11
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 22:21:57 :::
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
Adult Indian Inhabitant ]
R/at. House no. 1679, Takkagaon, ]
Panvel. ] ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10094 OF 2019
1. Kisan Baburao Jagnade, ]
Age: 85 years, Occ: Business, ]
R/o. Sahakar Nagar Market Yard, ]
103, Sai Pratik Building, ]
Panvel, Dist. Raigad ]
2. Tarachand Ratansi Bheda ]
Age: 85 years, Occ: Business, ]
R/o. Flat No.3, 3rd Floor, ]
Bundar Road, Panvel, Dist. Raigad ]
3. Vilas Anant Shedge ]
Age: 67, Occ: Business ]
R/o. 101, Yasho Anu Anant CHS, ]
Tilak Road, Panvel, Dist. Raigad ] ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Secretary Town Planning ]
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
2. Panvel Municipal Corporation ]
Though Commissioner, ]
Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ]
3. Ranchodji Devosthan Trust ]
Through the Chief Trustee ]
Mr. Mahendra Yashwant Phake, ]
Age: Adult, Occ:
R/o. House No.1679, Takkagaon, ]
4/11
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 22:21:57 :::
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
Panvel, Dist. Raigad ] ...Respondents
Mr. Shriram Kulkarni, i/by Mr. Swapnil Mhatre for the Petitioners.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. S.V. Gavand for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Sangeeta Salvi for Respondent No.3.
CORAM :
A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 31st January, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th February, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J.):
-
1) Before us there are two interconnected Writ Petitions.
WRIT PETITION NO.13413 OF 2017
2) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 14, 19 and 26 of the
Constitution of India seeks the following relief.
"a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction
in the name of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2
to allot the alternate plot No.232(A) at Panvel to the
Petitioners and they should be rehabilitated on the plot
No. 232(A) at Panvel."
3) The Petitioners are tenants of Respondent No. 3 - Trust and claim
to be in the occupation of a commercial premises located at City Survey
Numbers 821, 821/1 to 821/8 since more than 90 years. The Petitioners
received Notice dated 13th July, 2016, issued by the Panvel Municipal
Council under the provisions of Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) read with Rule No.19 of the
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
Maharashtra Town Planning Scheme, 1974. The impugned Notice stated
that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had decided to widen the existing road from
Karnala Circle to Tapal Naka admeasuring 18.30 mtrs. and in view of such
proposal, the structures occupied by the Petitioners on the writ property
and the plot were acquired by Respondent No.2. The Notice further
required them to vacate the premises within 30 days of the receipt of the
Notice and on failure to vacate, they would be evicted and the construction
would be demolished in accordance with the law.
4) The Petitioners learnt that the Respondent No.3 had given an
alternate plot number 232 (A) in lieu of the acquisition of the present plot.
The Petitioners therefore demanded that they be given possession of the
alternate plot which was given to the Respondent No.3 as tenants. The
Petitioners seek not only to get vacant and peaceful possession of the
alternate plot allotted to Respondent No.3 but proposed to construct
premises on the same in lieu of their tenancy rights.
5) Mr. Shriram Kulkarni representing the Petitioners submitted that
the Petitioners rights as tenants ought to be protected. He drew our
attention to Sub-Section (4)(ii) and (iii) of Section 72 as well as Section
101 of the MRTP Act to submit that the rights of the tenants ought to be
transferred to the alternate plot.
6) Ms. Salvi representing Respondent No.3, argues that the
Petitioners are not tenants but trespassers. She contends that the Petitioners
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
have not only encroached upon the property but have also constructed
structures and rented it out to some third persons. They are collecting rents
ranging from 25,000 to 30,000 per month from the occupants and thus
causing huge monetary losses to the Trust. She asserts that the Petitioners
have neither taken any NOC from the Trust nor taken any construction
permission from the concerned authorities. The Petitioners have neither
resided on the said plot as alleged nor paid any rent to the Trust. Moreover,
the implementation of the notice of 2nd Respondent is thwarted by this Writ
Petition. She thus urges the Petition be dismissed with costs.
7) Mr. Gavand representing Respondent No.2 contends that the
Petitioners appear to be encroachers on the land which is covered by the
final Town Planning Scheme under Section 88 of the MRTP Act. He asserts
that the land in question now vests in the corporation. He further asserts
that once the final scheme is sanctioned, all the rights of the persons
occupying the same cease to exist in view of the vesting of the land under
the law and the Petitioner is liable to be summarily evicted. He informs that
the alternate plot has already been given to Respondent No.3. Thus, it
would now be a matter between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 and
the Respondent No.2 has every right to evict the Petitioner summarily under
the provisions of the MRTP Act. He denied that the Petitioners had paid any
property tax to the Respondent. He submits that the 18.30 mtrs wide road
shown in the sanctioned TPS scheme has come into force since 15 th
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
September, 2009. He argued that in view of traffic congestion on this road,
the Petitioners are required to be immediately evicted by immediately
implementing the notice. He submits that the disputes are inter se between
the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 and cannot in any event prevent the
implementation of these notices. Therefore, the Petition deserves to be
dismissed and the injunction Order granted on 15 th November, 2019 should
be immediately set aside.
8) We have heard all the counsels and perused all the documents.
9) We are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Kulkarni for the
following reasons:
1) We have held in the case of Vivek Krushna Dode V/s.
State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 13254 of 2022 reported
in 2025: BHC-AS:2854-DB that a tenant of a structure cannot
challenge Notices under the MRTP Act, only the landlord can
challenge the same. The Petitioners right, if any, is only against
his landlord and tenants' rights, if any, are protected by statute.
2) Referring to the coordinate bench decisions in the case of
Anandrao G. Pawar V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534 and
Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons V/s. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Private
Limited and Others reported in (2014) 14 SCC page 1 , we
reiterate that, merely because a tenanted building is brought
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
down does not necessarily mean that the tenancy is extinguished
or comes to an end.
10) In this case it appears that there are disputes between the
Respondent No.3- landlord and the Petitioners. The Petition does not annex
a single document proving tenancy and merely bald statements are made.
There is also no documentary evidence proving that these structures are
authorised. We wonder how on a "Devsthan Trust" plot which is under the
Charity Commissioner, the Petitioners would have been permitted to occupy
and conduct the business of running a lottery shop, mobile repairing, watch
repairing and manufacturing mattresses. If the Trust is a Temple Trust, then
certainly, these activities would not be a part of the object of the Trust.
Consequently, the Charity Commissioner would most unlikely given any
permission for conducting the aforesaid businesses.
11) In our writ jurisdiction, we are unable to decide on these issues.
The Petitioners will have to get their rights asserted in jurisdictional Courts.
We are also unable to determine and protect the rights of the Petitioners
assuming that they are tenants. They have no right to object to the 2 nd
Respondent's notice more so as it is under Sections 88, 89 and 90 of the
MRTP Act.
12) The Petitioners have thwarted the entire implementation of the
Town Planning Scheme successfully since last 7 years by misguiding and
misrepresenting. They had no right. They have caused immense trouble not
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
only to the landlords but after issuance of notices also to the public at large,
by thwarting the Town Planning Scheme sought to be implemented in the
interest of the Public. The Petitioners have no right to stall the entire
scheme in this manner.
13) The notices issued under Sections 88, 89 and 90 are amply clear
and give full rights to the concerned authority for summary eviction.
14) The Petition is thus dismissed.
15) In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.13413 of 2017, the
Interim Application No. 11643 of 2024 does not survive and is accordingly
disposed off.
WRIT PETITION NO.10094 OF 2019
16) The Petitioners-Tenants seek the following substantive reliefs:
"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate Writ
or directions, directing the Respondents to allot and to
rehabilitate the Petitioners on the alternate site provided by
the Respondent No. 2 and till then the Respondents their
agents, servants and/ or any person acting on their behalf be
restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the
Petitioners on the suit plot being plot no. 253;
(b) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash and set
aside the notices dated 13/07/2016 and 15/04/2019 issued
by the Respondent No. 2."
17) Mr. Kulkarni for the Petitioners fairly submits that the facts and
contentions in this Petition are similar to Writ Petition No.13413 of 2017
apn 8-aswp-13413-2017-J.doc
and thus the same Order may be passed.
18) Thus, Writ Petition No.10094 of 2019 too stands dismissed in
terms of the above Order.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
