Bombay High Court
One Stop Business Services Llp vs Neelesh Ramkaran Yadav And Ors on 20 March, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-OS:4640-DB
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.36384 OF 2024
1. Neelesh Ramkaran Yadav ]
CTS no.1165, Ramkaran Tabela, ]
Joseph Patel Wadi, Seven Bungalows, ]
Versova, Andheri (W), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
2. Malti Sunder Yadav ]
CTS No.1165, Baba Tabela, ]
Sunder Bhaiya Chawl, ]
Joseph Patel Wadi, Sevan Bungalows, ]
Versova, Andheri (W), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ] ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ]
Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, ]
Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Government Pleader, ]
Original Side, Bombay High Court ]
Bombay ] ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37690 OF 2024
1. One Stop Business Services LLP ]
A Wing, 3rd Floor, Dudhwala Complex, ]
292, Belasis Road, Mumbai Central, ]
Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Applicants/
SUMEDH Intervenors
NAMDEO
SONAWANE In the matter between
Digitally signed by
SUMEDH NAMDEO
SONAWANE
Date: 2025.03.21
20:07:37 +0530
1. Neelesh Ramkaran Yadav ]
1/14
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2025 10:02:01 :::
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
CTS No.1165, Ramkaran Tabela ]
Joseph Patel Wadi, Seven Bungalows, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
2. Malti Sunder Yadav ]
CTS No.1165, Baba Tabela ]
Sunder Bhaiya Chawl, Joseph Patel Wadi, ]
Seven Bungalows, Versova, ]
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 061. ] ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ]
Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, ]
Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Government Pleader, ]
Original Side, Bombay High Court ]
Bombay ] ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37755 OF 2024
1. Joseph Patel Estate Navdurga ]
Rahivsi Seva Sangh CHS (Prop) ]
Joseph Patel Estate, 7 Bungalow ]
Andheri West, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Applicants/
Intervenors
In the matter between
1. Neelesh Ramkaran Yadav ]
CTS No.1165, Ramkaran Tabela ]
Joseph Patel Wadi, Seven Bungalows, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
2. Malti Sunder Yadav ]
2/14
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2025 10:02:01 :::
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
CTS No.1165, Baba Tabela ]
Sunder Bhaiya Chawl, Joseph Patel Wadi, ]
Seven Bungalows, Versova, ]
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 061. ] ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ]
Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, ]
Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Government Pleader, ]
Original Side, Bombay High Court ]
Bombay ] ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37759 OF 2024
1. Ramdas Nagar Joseph Patelwadi ]
CHS (PROP) ]
Balvidya Mandir, Joseph Patelwadi, ]
Ramdas Nagar, Yash, ]
Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Applicants/
Intervenors
In the matter between
1. Neelesh Ramkaran Yadav ]
CTS No.1165, Ramkaran Tabela ]
Joseph Patel Wadi, Seven Bungalows, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
2. Malti Sunder Yadav ]
CTS No.1165, Baba Tabela ]
Sunder Bhaiya Chawl, Joseph Patel Wadi, ]
Seven Bungalows, Versova, ]
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 061. ] ... Petitioners
3/14
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2025 10:02:01 :::
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ]
Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, ]
Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Government Pleader, ]
Original Side, Bombay High Court ]
Bombay ] ...Respondents
Mr. Dhananjay Singh a/w. Adv. Shailesh Rai for the Petitioners.
Mr. Salman Balbale for the Intervenor in IAL/37755/2024 and
IAL/37759/2024.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, a/w Adv. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr.
Hasan Mushabbes, i/by Negandhi Shah & Himayutullah for the Intervenor
in IAL/37690/2024.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Adv. Rupali Adhate, i/by Adv.
Komal Punjabi for the Respondent No.1-BMC.
Mr. Pathan, General Manager, Denonar Abbattoir, present.
Mr. Dipesh Siroya, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM :
A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28th February, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th March, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J.):
-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Notices
dated 22nd October, 2024 and 11th November, 2024. Additionally, they
seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith
release the seized cattle of Petitioners.
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
2) The Petitioners are in the business of running stables since the
past several decades from the property admeasuring 2860 sq. ft. and 1333
sq. ft. bearing CTS Nos. 1165 of village Versova, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai
Suburban district. The Petitioner's have approached the Court being
aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.1- Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation (BMC), who seized the cattle from the Petitioner's stable on
28th November 2024 amidst heavy deployment of Police Force with BMC
officers of the K/West Ward.
3) Adv. Dhananjay Singh for Petitioners submitted that, the
Petitioners and their families have been in occupation of the land and
structures prior to 1961. They have been paying Municipal taxes as well as
electricity charges payable to the concerned Departments. They also claim
to have a Ration Card in their names which prove their existence on this
land.
3.1) Mr. Singh submitted that, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the
Notices which seek to forcibly evict and relocate their cattle beyond the
Mumbai City and Mumbai suburban district within 15 days. He asserts that
the Respondent-BMC has failed to consider the report dated 4th March
2021, issued by the Commissioner Dairy Development Maharashtra
Government, pursuant to the directions of this Court by its Order dated
30th January, 2020 in various Writ Petitions. He contends that, there were
guidelines for relocation of the cattle to the alternate site at Dapchari,
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
District Palghar, which was to be done in a phased manner. He asserts that,
there is no infrastructure at Dapchari making it impossible for the
Petitioners to relocate. He submits that, there are around 300 cattle sheds,
but only a few are being targeted for removal from the City. He accordingly
submits that, the notices ought to be quashed and set aside and the Petition
be made absolute as prayed.
4) Mr. Godbole representing Respondent No.1-BMC submitted
that, as per the directives of the State Government in respect of the
resettlement of cattle, a notification dated 1st July, 2006 was issued,
whereby the areas of Mumbai and Suburban districts being urban areas
were declared as prohibited for keeping and movement of cattle in urban
areas. He asserted that as per Section 41A of Maharashtra Keeping and
Movement of Cattle in Urban Areas (Control) Act, 1976 a householder was
entitled to keep not more than 3 heads of cattle and would be granted a
'Class A' license for the same. Therefore, the business activity of the
Petitioners is per se illegal. He contended that, the BMC had stopped
renewing license to the cattle shed owners since 2006 as per Circular No.
HO35334/4R dated 30th November 2006. However, the area of Aarey Milk
Colony, Goregaon was excluded by a subsequent notification dated 11th
August 2009, from the purview of the earlier notification of the State
Government. Furthermore, the Supreme Court by its Order dated 16th
April, 2021 had held that Order of status quo granted by the High Court
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
was brought to an end and there were no restrictions operating against the
State Authorities to take action as per law thus upholding the Order and
Judgment of this Court dated 30th January, 2020.
4.1) Mr. Godbole emphasized that, the Petitioners were not the only
ones who were issued Notices. The contention that they were targeted is
baseless. He stated that out of 274 stable owners in Mumbai suburbs, 195
were issued notices by the Assistant Commissioners of their respective
wards. Mr. Godbole also relied upon a chart showing the actions taken
against those stable owners pursuant to the Notices.
4.2) Mr. Godbole submitted that, the animals that were seized were
handed over to a cattle pound where they are being looked after. There was
however, an unfortunate incident of a bull's death during the period that
the cattle were impounded. The report of the autopsy carried out dated 9th
January, 2025 revealed that, it was a natural death caused on account of
cardiac respiratory failure. He submitted that, the Petitioners are free to
take away their cattle and the BMC should be discharged of their
responsibility for maintaining these cattle. Relying on the Affidavit of the
BMC's Municipal Commissioner he submitted that, the cattle owner would
have to approach their jurisdictional Magistrate at Ville Parle to take back
their seized cattle as only the Magistrates were empowered to release them
as per Section 441-G of the MMC Act 1888.
5) Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior counsel appeared for the
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
Intervenor, an owner cum developer. appointed by Authorities under the
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. He argued that the Applicants are the owners
of the immovable property bearing CTS Nos.1165, 1166, 1166/1-4, 1167,
1168, 1168/1-11, 1169, 1169/1-5, 1170, 1170/1-11, 1171, 1172, 1172/1-4
known as Ramdas Nagar, Joseph Patel Vadi, SRA situated at Mauje Versova,
District Andheri, Mumbai. They as owners cum developers are
implementing a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme that is approved by the SRA.
5.1) He argued that, the Petitioners have suppressed material facts
from this Court. The Petitioners have failed to bring to the notice of this
Court that there was an Order of eviction against the Petitioner passed by
the CEO SRA and subsequently, the AGRC who also had heard the matter
has closed the matter for Orders.
5.2) He asserted that, a Letter of Intent ('LoI') was issued on 30th
March, 2022 and an Intimation of Approval ('IoA') was granted on 31st
March 2022. They have also obtained a Commencement Certificate under
regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Promotion Regulation 2034
('DCPR') on 24th August 2023. He contends that, an Annexure-II was
prepared and it discloses that out of the 426 structures on the property 403
have been declared eligible. There is also one temple and the balance
structures' eligibility is yet to be decided but they were demolished and
there Appeals a pending before the AGRC.
5.3) Mr. Chinoy submitted that, the Petitioners were the non-
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
cooperating members of this Scheme. By an order dated 15th April 2024,
the Deputy Collector had directed the Petitioners to vacate their 11
structures, being ineligible within 30 days. Out of the 11 structures, 5
structures occupied by the Petitioners consisted of a tabela (stable), two
structures were being used for residential purposes and two structures for
storage of fodder and as godowns. The 6 other structures were occupied by
the wife of the Petitioner and that too consisted of a tabela. Four structures
were being used for residential purpose and one was being used for storage
of fodder and as godown. He submitted that Writ Petitions were filed by
these Petitioners and by an Order dated 1st July 2024, this Court had
directed the Petitioners to apply to AGRC for interim relief.
5.4) Mr. Chinoy contended that, presently 414 structures are
already demolished and more than 1000 persons are out of their respective
tenements. The delay of the implementation of the SRA scheme at the
instance of the Petitioners was causing prejudice not only to the owners but
also the other occupants who have moved out of their tenements. He
submits that the owners are incurring an expense of Rs.75 lakhs every
month towards transit rent.
5.5) Upon instructions from his clients, Mr. Chinoy submitted that
they are willing to shift the Petitioners at one M/s. Shahid Dairy Farms,
Vasai, Palghar, i.e. outside the prescribed limits but closer to Mumbai than
Dapchari, offered by the State. It has all amenities like storing for fodder for
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
cattle, rooms for the workers etc. and is conducive for running the business
of dairy farming. He submitted that it also has electricity connection and a
well for drawing water for the purposes of running the dairy business. He
submitted that this stable can accommodate 150 cattle. They were
agreeable to bear the license fee of Rs.50,000/- per month for the
Petitioners and were also willing to make some changes if required in the
tabela and make it habitable at their costs so as not to cause any
inconvenience to the Petitioners. This facility they were willing to extend
for a period of one year instead of three months as directed by the CEO SRA
by its Orders. He submitted that, they were open to an amicable settlement
but the Petitioners were demanding exorbitant amounts to vacate, holding
them to ransom. The delay in implementation of SRA scheme would
severely prejudice and make the entire project unviable. He thus submitted
that the Petition be dismissed.
6) We have heard all counsel and perused all the documents on
record.
7) We find that the Petitioners have not come to the Court with
clean hands and have suppressed material facts.
7.1) Upon our inquiry as to whether the Petitioners claimed
ownership rights by adverse possession Mr. Singh, for the Petitioners
remained silent. In our view therefore, they are illegal squatters on the
Applicant's lands since prior to 1960. The documents such as assessments
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
bills or tax paid by the Petitioners, electricity bills, Ration Card, and other
such ancillary documents relied upon by the Petitioners do not give them
any title to the lands occupied by them. These are the kind of slum colonies
in Bombay who have their origin in acts of trespass and the private citizens
suffering could do little to get even with the wrong doers that were referred
to by our Court in the case of Reverend Father, Peter Paul Fernandes, Parish
Priest and Sole Trustee of the Church of St. Francis Xavier vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 1991 Bom 445.
7.2) The State has acknowledged them as tolerated structures. The
Notices for removal of cattle stable from Mumbai city and suburban district
at Dapchari are issued since the State has notified the Mumbai City upto
Mahim Creek, Sion and the entire area of Mumbai suburban district as a
prohibited area for keeping and movement of cattle. The Supreme Court by
its Order dated 16th April, 2021 while dismissing the SLP No.2525/2526 of
2021, has held that there are no restrictions preventing the State
Authorities from taking action in accordance with law. The Supreme Court
has directed the stable owners to avail of the alternate sites offered by the
State Government at Dapchari or any other location. The Commissioner
Dairy Development has directed the BMC to take strict actions against the
tabela/stable owners who have still not shifted to Dapchari by his
correspondence dated 19th March 2024.
8) The contention of the Petitioners that, there are around 300
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
stables and only they were being targeted is entirely baseless. The
Petitioners have suppressed that they are a part of the slum scheme. They
have also suppressed that all the slums around them have been demolished
and their occupants are out. On this ground alone, the Petition is liable to
be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, we have looked into the
merits of the Petition and decided on it.
8.1) The Petitioners are a part of the slum scheme. They are found
to be ineligible. They therefore are required to be removed. Upon inquiry
with Mr. Singh we found that, the Petitioners were not members of the
Bombay Milk Producers Association. They have neither been parties to the
group of Writ Petitions filed in the Bombay High Court nor were they
parties to the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. We are unable to
accept the argument of Mr. Singh that, the directions passed by the High
Court and upheld by the Supreme Court were not binding on the Petitioners
since they were not parties. The Petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate
i.e. they cannot choose to take benefits of the Orders and directions passed
by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court to submit that they would
only shift to Dapchari if the State provides all infrastructural facilities as
contemplated and at the same time refuse to accept a slum scheme which is
being implemented by its owner.
9) We find that these actions of the Petitioners in not cooperating
with the owners or the State in its development is nothing else but a very
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
adamant attitude. It leads us to believe that, it is nothing else but a case of
sophisticated manner of extortion as the Petitioner knows fully well that,
the developer is incurring huge financial outflow every month which at
some point if delayed further would cause huge losses and eventually make
the project unviable. It could also lead to the termination of the
development right under section 13(2) of the Slums Act. Thus whereas
there would be severe prejudice being caused to the Owner-Developer,
there would be no loss caused to the persons like the Petitioners who are
actually rank trespassers on the property. It is seen in many cases as well as
the present one that, the individuals such as the Petitioners feel that if they
are the last to move out of the project, they would be entitled to extract
more benefits from the developers and enrich themselves handsomely.
10) We agree with Mr. Khandeparkar that such persons are not
entitled to any benefits under Section 33(10)(VI)1.16 of the DCPR 2034 as
well as the Section 33A(f) of the Slum Act. That, such persons do not
deserve any sympathy, nor do they deserve any additional compensation.
An individual who is a rank trespasser and has usurped properties of an
owner cannot be seen to be dictating terms to the owner or the developer to
take up a scheme as per his choice. The Petitioners' contention that the
developer ought to have developed the scheme under 33(14) is therefore
rejected. It is entirely the prerogative of the owner/developer to develop as
per the slum scheme that would be most beneficial to him and/or to the
sns 21-oswpl-36384-2024-J.doc
slum dwellers. A beneficiary to the Slum Scheme would have no choice in
the matter. We find that by filing the Petition, the Petitioners have already
caused a considerable delay in implementation of the Slum Scheme. Most
of the slum occupants are out of their homes since November-2024 as
stated by Mr. Khandeparkar. The Petitioners have been clearly non-
cooperative as can be observed from the pleadings and the reports as well
as the Orders of the SRA.
11) After perusing entire record, we are of the considered view
that, the impugned Notice is in accordance with law and there is no
illegality in it.
12) In the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that,
the Petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs of not less than
Rs.5,00,000/-. However, at the sincere request of Mr. Singh, we refrain
ourselves from imposing it.
13) Petition is accordingly dismissed.
14) In view of the dismissal of the Petition, Interim Applications do
not survive and are accordingly disposed off.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
