Manilal Shamjibhai Bavarva vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 8986 Guj

    C/SCA/6771/2017                                   CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6771 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== MANILAL SHAMJIBHAI BAVARVA & 5 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:

for the Petitioner(s) No. 4.1,4.2,4.3.1,4.3.2,4.4,4.5,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,5.6 DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 4,4.3,5 MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,6,6.1

NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5,6 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

Date : 11/10/2022

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners by

challenging the notices dated 30.03.2017, it is served

upon the petitioners on 31.03.2017, upon 8.00 p.m. and

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

on 01.04.2017 in the morning (Saturday), the demolition

drive is carried out and therefore, the petitioner has

modified the petition on the holiday and by praying to

exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and when the matter is heard by learned Single

Judge of this Hon'ble Court on 01.04.2017, the following

order is passed :

"1. This matter is circulated today on the basis of the permission granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. It deserves to be noted that by an order dated 24.03.2017, this Court had disposed of the earlier petitions filed by the very petitioners being SCA Nos. 2226/17 to 2231/17, wherein the following is observed -

"2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent no.3 has stated on oath as under:-

11. I say that the Corporation without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions in support of their stand as regard lawfulness of their action and unsustainability of challenge made by the petitioner to such legal action in the present petition, has decided to withdraw the show cause notice dated 31.12.2016 issued to the petitioner by the Corporation. I say that in view of withdrawal of the said notice the order dated 3.02.2017 does not survive and the petition challenging the said order consequently becomes infructuous. I submit that no cause of action now survives for the petitioner to maintain the present

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

petition and consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed in law.

12. I submit that the aforesaid decision of the Corporation does not bear recognition of any right, legal or ow of the petitioner nor has it been taken because of mantainability and/or acceptability of any legal submission advanced by the petitioner in the present petition. I say that the decision to withdraw the show cause notice dated 3.02.2016 and cancel the order dated 3.02.2017 flowing from the said notice have been taken only with a view to avoid legal complications relating to authority of the Corporation in issuing the notice on the date on which it was issued by the Corporation. I reiterate that the withdrawal of the notice and cancellation of order made thereunder therefore may not be construed as admission of any wrongdoing on the part of the Corporation.

13. I submit that the Corporation reserves the right and liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice, if any, as may be permissible in law, at a future date upon the petitioner in accordance with law.

3. In light of the aforesaid statement on affidavit by the Corporation as the notice impugned is withdrawn, the petitions do not survive. However, in case if any similar actions are taken, rights of both the parties are kept open.

4.It appears that on withdrawal of the said petitions the impugned notices issued on 30.03.2017 were served at 7.40 PM on 31.03.2017. The notices dated 30.03.2017 states that the construction in question is made without permission/unauthorised and in

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

breach of the GDCR and on receipt of these notices, the same may be demolished/removed or else, immediate proceedings will be taken. It is informed that the notices have been implemented. It is unfortunate. Hence, Notice returnable on 06.04.2017. Ms.Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no.3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no.1, 2, 4 & 6. No further action shall be taken by the respondent Corporation and no change in position of the land which is the subject matter of this petition shall be made by the either parties. It is also stated that both the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have been given the full set of the paper book.

5.This order is passed today at 2.15 pm in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall inform their respective parties. The order be also communicated to the Police Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by fax as well as by e-mail at the cost of the petitioners."

2. Thereafter, the matter is adjourned from time to

time and in the meantime, Civil Applications are also

filed. More particularly, Civil Application No. 6063 of

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

2017 in Special Civil Application No.6771 of 2017 is

filed, whereby this Hon'ble Court has passed following

order dated 04.05.2017 :-

"1. Heard Mr.Mrugesh Barot, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr.Maulik G Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.

2. By an order dated 1.4.2017, this Court while issuing notice in the main matter, this Court has observed thus :-

4. It appears that on withdrawal of the said petitions the impugned notices issued on 30.03.2017 were served at 7.40 PM on 31.03.2017. The notices dated 30.03.2017 states that the construction in question is made without permission/unauthorised and in breach of the GDCR and on receipt of these notices, the same may be demolished/removed or else, immediate proceedings will be taken. It is informed that the notices have been implemented. It is unfortunate. Hence, Notice returnable on 06.04.2017. Ms.Akta Jadeja, learned advocate waives for respondents no.3 and 5 and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP waives for respondents no.1, 2, 4 & 6. No further action shall be taken by the respondent Corporation and no change in position of the land which is the subject matter of this petition shall be made by the either parties. It is also stated that both the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have been given the full set of the paper book.

5. This order is passed today at 2.15 pm in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

parties. D.S. is permitted today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall inform their respective parties. The order be also communicated to the Police Commissioner as well as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation by fax as well as by e-mail at the cost of the petitioners."

3. By this application the applicants-original petitioners have prayed for permitting them to take out the goods which are enlisted at Annexure B, which are 12 in number (in general).

4. Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation states that after the order was passed by this Court, certain complaints have been lodged and certain goods are taken under the Panchnama. Be that as it may, the applicants -original petitioners are permitted to enter the land in question and on their own remove goods belonging to them from amongst the list at Annexure B if found on the site. It is clarified that this would not create any liability on any of the authorities and it is for the applicants- original petitioners who claim to be the owners of the goods. Each of the petitioners shall file an undertaking in the main petition to the effect that they shall not raise any claim against any authority for the goods which are removed. Such undertaking shall be filed within one week from today.

5. This exercise shall be carried out by the applicants -original petitioners in the presence of the police authority.

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

6. The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.

Direct service is permitted."

3. In this background, the petition is heard for final

disposal.

4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta

with learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the

petitioners, learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for respondent

No.1- State and learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavaty

for Nanavaty and Co. for respondent No.3 - Corporation.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for

the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action

of the respondent-authority is totally illegal, arbitrary,

unjustified and unreasonable as he has submitted that

the show cause notices issued on 30.03.2017, which was

served upon the petitioners on 31.03.2017 around 8 O'

Clock in the evening and the Corporation has demolished

the premises of the petitioners on very next date

morning on 01.04.2017 and that being (Saturday) and

that particular day is selected by the respondent -

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

authority with a view to see that petitioners cannot

approach the Court of law. He has further submitted

that the petitioners are residing over the plots registered

with City Survey office as Old Revenue Survey No.561,

City Survey No.2212 of Vadodara Kasba and the

petitioners are residing in a kutcha-puckka houses over

the plot area mentioned hereinabove. He has further

submitted that more than 80 years as per the online

property tax receipts issued by Vadodara Municipal

Corporation, the petitioners and their four brothers are

residing at the same plots. He has further submitted

that the electoral list of the voters for the year 1967-68

reflects the name of the grandfather of the present

petitioners.

5.1. He has submitted that in the year 1974, due to

some misconception introduction of city survey parcel of

the land is illegally reflected as government land. He

has further submitted that the land in question came to

be included under the jurisdiction of Vadodara Municipal

Corporation in July, 1950 under the provisions of BPMC

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

Act, 1949 and thereafter, the Corporation has issued text

receipts in the capacity of document to the petitioners

for the year 1974 and for all the years thereafter. He

has further submitted that the petitioners were served

with the notices in the year 1979 by the Mamlatdar,

Vadodara City exercising powers under Section 61 of the

Bombay Land Revenue Code. Upon the receipts of said

notices, detailed reply was filed by the petitioners.

Thereafter, the petitioners were served upon the

communication dated 16.05.1979 intimating the next date

of hearing scheduled on 23.05.1979. Thereafter, nothing

is heard. Thereafter, it transpires from the documents

available with the present petitioners that one more

notice dated 19.11.1984 by City Survey Office with

similar contents as that of earlier notice was issued by

the Mamlatdar. He has further submitted that on

16.01.1986, the notice came to be served upon by the

Public Works Department, Bharuch (in short "PWD"), in

the name of the petitioners to remove unauthorised

construction of the permanent nature made over

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

Government land and a detailed reply was tendered by

the petitioners on 23.01.1986 and it seems that all the

proceedings initiated in the year 1979 and 1984 under

Section 61 of the B.L.R. Code seems to be pending since

no nay hearing or final order came to be served /

communicated to the petitioners and the said proceedings

are pending as on date before the learned Mamlatdar

and City Survey Superintendent.

5.2. He has submitted that on 27.08.2009, a further

notice came to be served upon the petitioners under

Section 61 of the B.L.R. Code for eviction and removal

of unauthorised construction under the pretext that the

land belongs to State Government. The petitioners

tendered reply tot he said show cause notce on

05.10.2009. It is further contended by learned senior

advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner that thereafter, the

petitioners have preferred an application for

regularization of the land in question vide application

dated 23.12.2011 against payment of occupancy price. The

petitioners submitted that till 2016 no communications

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

received from any of the revenue authorities and on

31.12.2016 Notice is issued by the respondent No.3

Vadodara Municipal Commissioner. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied by the said notice, the present petitioners

have challenged the action of the respondent by way of

filing Special Civil Application No. 12 of 2017. Since,

notice was not issued under section 260 or 478 or

quoting any provision of B.P.M.C Act on broad concensus

on 31.01.2017, the said petition was disposed of vide

order dated 03.01.2017 with certain observations and

directions, by directing Municipal Corporation to hear the

petitioners as well as the other similarly situated person

by giving an opportunity to file reply along with the

documentary evidence and accordingly the petition is

disposed of. Petitioners were remained present at the

time of hearing and without considering the details and

documents submitted by the present petitioners, the

Municipal Commissioner ordered to demolish the

residential premises and directed to remove the

construction within seven days. At that point of time the

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

13 similarly situated persons to whom, such notices were

served, were withdrawn qua those 13 persons.

5.3. Thereafter, the petitioners also found that one Civil

Suit is pending before the competent Civil Court with

respect to property in question filed by the then Ruler of

Gaikwad State against the State Government for

declaration and injunction and the Online status of the

said suit being 313 of 1989 shows as pending. Being

aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order

passed by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation the

petitioner is constrained to file this petition being Special

Civil Application Nos. 2226 to 2231 of 2017. In the said

set of petitions, the respondent - Corporation has also

filed reply that they have withdrawn the notices in

which the order came to be passed. Therefore, the

petitions were disposed of by order dated 24.03.2017 by nd this Hon'ble Court, thereafter within 6 days 2 notice

was issued for the same cause of action on 30.03.2017,

which is served on 31.03.2017 and therefore, the present

petition is filed.

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

6. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta has

contended that in view of the above stated facts and

circumstances, it is improper to on the part of the

respondent-Corporation, who is considered as a State

Authority and this action of issuance of notice is nothing

but is violation of the order passed by this Court in first

round i.e. 03.01.2017. He has further submitted that

these notices issued within 4 to 5 days, the petition is

disposed of by this Hon'ble Court as earlier notices were

withdrawn by the Corporation and more, particularly, the

notices are served on Friday Night and action is of

demolition is taken on Saturday morning, which shows

ill intention and high handedness of the Officers of the Corporation and there is arbitrariness and case is made

out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India by this Hon'ble Court.

7. He has further submitted that the show cause

notice issued is also bad in law in view of the judgment OLGA TELLIS & ORS. Vs. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION & ORS. reported in 1986 AIR 180 and in view

of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

Constitution of India.

8. He has further submitted that time, which is

selected by the Corporation and for serving all notices

and taking action of demolition is with clear view to

deprive the right of the citizen to approach the remedy

available under the law. This action of the Corporation

is of taking serious note.

9. He has further submitted that even in the affidavit

filed by the Corporation, the Corporation is saying that

now there is a demolition of the land in question, as per

the say of the Corporation is occupied by the present

petitioners in illegal manner as encroacher of the land without having any valid and legal title even then some

procedure of law is required to be followed by giving

reasonable opportunity to the citizens of the country.

More particularly in view of the provisions of the

Constitution of India and therefore, he has submitted

that as per the say of the Corporation, that

rehabilitation can be provided to the present petitioners

and Corporation cannot ask for any amount to be paid

by the present petitioners as petitioners are deprived of

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

their residential property in such a brutal manner, they

are not permitted to remove their belongings and the

petitioners have to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing

Civil Application during the pendency of Special Civil

Application and therefore, he prays that considering the

high handed conduct of the Officers of the respondent -

Corporation and considering the same judgments on the

point of law, the amount of compensation of at least one

lakh or more should be provided to the present

petitioners, If the main prayer cannot be granted as

prayed for in the present petition.

10. The Hon'ble Apex in the judgment rendered in case

of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. vs. M/S Sunbeam High Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd in Civil

Appeal No. 7627 of 2019, paras 15, 16 and 17 of that

judgment are relevant for the purpose of present matter

when the structure is illegal structure even though it

has been demolished illegally, such structure should not

be permitted to come up again and if the Municipal

Corporation violates the procedure while demolishing the

building, but the structure is totally illegal, some

compensation can be awarded and in cases where such

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

compensation is awarded, the same should be invariably

is recovered from the Officers who acted in violation of

the matter. He has submitted that the Hon'ble High

Court of Bombay in identical situated matter has taken

strong view by considering that he has relied upon the

judgment reported in Maharashtra Law Journel, 2018 (6)

Mh.L.J. 459 in case of Jaiprakash Vishwanath Jaiswal

vs. Municipal Corporation of Cities of Kalyan and Dombivali and Ors. and more particularly relied upon paras 26 and 27 and submitted even we let go of the

observations, even after openly and knowingly contrary

in the law common litigant will be emboldened and

admitted to follow them in the wrongly and illegal act.

Therefore, he prays that some strong action is required to be taken, pursuant to such illegal demolition as

alleged by the present petitioners and pass appropriate

order of compensation also, If the prayer, which is

sought for permitting the petitioners to stay on the same

part and parcel of land granted by this Court.

11. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Maulik Nanavaty

appearing for the Corporation has drawn the attention of

this Court that towards various communication whereby

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

he has submitted that the Corporation has time and

again given the notice to the present petitioners, who

are admittedly encroachers of the property in question.

He has further submitted that the Government has

already carried out proceedings against the present

petitioners under Section 61 of the Bombay Land

Revenue Code, repeatedly from more than 60 years back

now the property in questing is coming within the part

and parcel limit of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

It is statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to take

appropriate action pursuant to the such government

lands and properties.

12. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Maulik

Nanavaty that every action is taken after following due

procedure and he has pointed out that the order passed

by the authority dated 03.02.2017, which is speaking

order whereby on perusal of the documents, the

authorities have asked all the concerned persons, who

are occupying the land to produce the necessary

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

documents of the title and interest in the land in

question, out of 19 persons, six persons could not

produce any documents and the age concession are found

illegal and other 13 persons who have not concerned

with the law that particular land who have produced

some documents pertains to that and against those 13

persons the Corporation has found there is no illegality

on their part and therefore, the Corporation has

withdrawn the notices against illegality committed by

those persons. Simultaneously the Corporation has also

found that remaining six persons who are the present

petitioners have committed illegality and their

constructions are totally illegal and even then after the

Corporation has shown willingness to allot some premises

in B.S.U.P. and Slum Free City Scheme towards the

alternative arrangement as per prevailing policy of the

State Government and initially the petitioners also

visited that particular premises with the Officers of the

Corporation and had also shown willingness to accept the

proposal of the Corporation, but thereafter they have

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

withdrawn their willingness and therefore, the

Corporation has no other option but pass order by

asking those six persons who are the present petitioner

to remove the constructions over the City Survey

No.2212 admeasuring 1350 sq. meteres within 7 days

from receipt of notice.

13. He has further submitted that the petitioners are

coming before this Court on erroneous foundations that

one the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing

City Survey No.2211 situated in the City of Vadodara

and to the petitioners have put up lawful constructions

over the said plot. He has further submitted that the

petitioners had sought to be removed arbitrary and

unlawfully by the Corporation. He has further submitted

that the land bearing City Survey No.2212 belongs to

the Government as it is reflected in the Revenue Record

since the year 1974 and now it is handed over to the

Corporation. He has submitted that the constructions

made by the petitioners over the land is illegal being

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

impermissible in the law and the constructions is also

unauthorized being made without obtaining development

permission from the Corporation. He has further

submitted that each of the petitioners have been offered

alternative accommodation by the corporation, even

though they are encroachers over the public land only on

account of the long possession, the action of the

Corporation in removing the encroachment and

demolishing the illegal constructions standing over the

public land is just and proper.

14. He has further submitted that even today none of

the petitioners has been able to produce any material

even before this Court to show that each or any one of

them is owner of the land, towards no documents to

show title or ownership over the land. He has

submitted the construction has been made by each of

them over the land without any obtaining permission and

they have failed to produce any permission on the record

before even this Court. Therefore, he has submitted that

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

the Corporation is duty bound and as also under the

legal obligation to find out encroachment and remove

them in accordance with law and corporation is towards

discharge of such legal obligation and such action of

corporation cannot be termed as arbitrary, illegal or

without any authority of law. He has further submitted

that even after demolition of the structure, it is found

that some of the persons are tried to re-enter into the

remaining premises and therefore, also threatened the

Officers of the Corporation and also tried to attack the

Officers of the Corporation and therefore, the Corporation

has to made criminal complaint against such person also.

He has further submitted that even then it is found that

the possession of the petitioners from the beginning and

till its continuance to remain illegal and the long

passage of time will not legitimate their possession. He

has further submitted that beyond at the most long

possession of such public property of welfare and

sympathetic consideration may require the rehabilitation

and therefore, he submitted that beyond his settlement

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

the persons have not right in law and in the present

case each of the petitioners have been offered alternative

accommodation by the Corporation and therefore, he

submitted that the action of the Corporation by no

stretch of imagination to be considered to harsh, much

less, arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal or not in connivance

with law and therefore, he submitted that the writ

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

prerogative writ and is not issued on mere asking on

bald allegation of illegal action by the authority that to

at the instance of the present person, who has himself

resorted to illegality or has sent no record for the law

and undisputedly the present petitioners are not lawful

owner of the land and possession over the public land is

illegal without any authority of law. Such persons cannot

raises any complaint about action of the corporation,

which aims to eradicate illegality committed by them. So

long as the action of the authority broadly confirms. He

prays to dismiss the present petition as no case is made

out by the present petitioner to interfere with the action

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

and no prayer can be granted. He however, reiterated

that at the best the rehabilitation can be provided to the

present petitioners if they are will to take that

opportunity.

15. Considering the rival submissions made at bar and

after considering the averments made in the memo of

petition and documents annexed with the petition also

considering the affidavit-in-reply filed by the corporation

and documents annexed with the reply, I am of the view

that the present petition filed by the present petitioners

is not required to be considered on the ground that

admittedly the present petitioners are not lawfull owner

of the land in question. More particularly, the

Government authorities have issued various notices under

Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Though it

was not proceeded further, but no documents to establish

the title over the land and on the merely basis of the

long possession, they cannot claim title in the property.

16. It is also found that no document is produced by

the petitioners on record of the present petition to show

that the construction put up on the said land is also

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

after taking permission from the any of the competent

authority and therefore, even constructions put up by the

present petitioners are also apparently found not in

accordance with law and can be termed as illegal

construction.

17. More particularly the petitioners have time and

again approached this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble

Court on earlier occasion has given some opportunity to

represent their case and accordingly they would have

represented the case even the Corporation has given

some opportunity to select alternative place of that

rehabilitation but they have not opted for that and they

have denied that the suggestions from the corporation

and they have insisted that they will still remain in possession of the land, which is subject matter of the

present petition. Now the said land is vested within the

jurisdiction of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and it

is statutory as well as legal duty of the corporation to

protect the properties. More particularly government

properties and if required to take appropriate action to

evict the encroacher from the property. It is also

reveals from the record that the Corporation has issued

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

notices for vacation of the premises and on earlier

occasion also the Corporation has issued notices which

were challenged before the authority. This time the

Corporation has issued notice and after giving an

opportunity to vacate the premises on the next day the

Corporation has visited the premises and has demolished

the premises as required under the law. There is no

mandatory requirement for the corporation to give

specific time period after issuance of notice. It is true

that the Corporation has acted with some haste in

demolition of the such construction but looking to the

previous experience where the every action of the

Corporation is challenged by the petitioners by taking

every recourse under the law and when the Corporation has followed necessary procedure by giving sufficient

opportunity under the law to the present petitioners.

Now the petitioners, who are not having any legal on

valid title over the land in question nor having any

valid permission of construction under the law, cannot

now challenge the action of the Corporation by describing

such action is illegal.

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

18. Now considering the submission of senior advocate

Mr. Shalin Mehta regarding some action is required to

be taken against the Officer of the Corporation or by

granting some compensation to the petitioners by

referring the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as

well as Bombay High Court. It is in the same judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear cut direction that

if the structure is illegal and the person is occupying

such premises without any valid or legal title and the

construction has put up without any proper authority

under the law then such construction is required to be

demolished and person is required to be evicted and

therefore, there is no question and in view of the latest

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident

Welfare Association and Ors. reported in (2021) 10

SCC 1.

19. Now it is necessary that the Courts have to take

serious view about the illegal constructions and legal

occupation of the land in question. I find there is no

merit in the present petition. I find there is no

justifiable cause for calling any interference with the

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

action taken by the present respondent - Corporation. I

find there is no illegality, arbitrariness or impropriety

found in the action taken by the Corporation. However,

it is always better for the Officers of the Corporation to

observe some restraint by taking some such harsh action

but that does not give any reasons to interfere in the

actions taken by the Corporation for the larger public

interest. It is not a case where the official or public

servant is knowingly contravening the law and adopted

the proceedings in illegal manner, but in the present

case, I found that there is no illegality or arbitrariness

is found in the action of the Officers of the Corporation

and therefore, I find there is no reason to interfere with

the impugned action of the respondent - Corporation for demolishing the premises of the petitioners and as the

petitioners have no legal and valid title in their favour,

they cannot claim any equitable right to get the benefit

to stay on the same land from where the entire

construction is removed by the Corporation as same land

is otherwise admittedly a Government Land from the

Revenue Record also it is allotted to the PWD, if

petitioners want to opt for any alternative relief, i.e. by

way of rehabilitation, which is already offered by the

C/SCA/6771/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/10/2022

Corporation and petitioners can opt for that relief, if

they want to avail within 4 weeks from the date of the

order otherwise there is no substance on merits found in

the present petition therefore no relief can be granted as

prayed in the present petition and there is no justifiable

cause is made out exercise powers under the equitable

as well as discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India and therefore, the petition

deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, with no order

as to costs.

20. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated.

Civil Applications, if any, pending before this Court

are also disposed of accordingly.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) KUMAR ALOK