Bombay High Court
George Mendonca And Anr vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation ... on 15 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 2622
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: Sunil P. Deshmukh, G. S. Kulkarni
52.WPST.9834_2021.docx
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 9834 OF 2021
George Mendonca & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents
Ms. Sonal i/b. M/s. FF & Associates for the petitioners.
Smt. Swati Sagavekar for respondents-Vasai Virar City Municipal
Corporation.
Mr. Prajot H. Jaggi for the occupants.
CORAM :- SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE :- JUNE 15, 2021
PC :
1. The petitioners, who are the owners of a building situated at VN03. 21220, Navghar 1/1, Hira Bhavan(also known as Jaffar Chawl), Opp. Panchal Nagar, Old Mun House No. 207, Survey No. 8A, Navghar, Taluka-Vasai, District Palghar, is before the Court praying that respondent no. 1-Corporation be directed to take appropriate action in pursuance of the demolition notice issued by them on 17 th October, 2020 (Exhibit-A). The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) For a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing and ordering the respondent to implement and execute the notice dated 17th October, 2020 at Exhibit"A" and order at Exhibit "C" hereto;
b) That respondent no. 1 be directed to submit its action taken report in this Hon'ble Court with respect to notice dated 17 th October, 2020 at Exhibit 'A' and order at Exhibit 'C" and till such 1/6 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2021 20:48:33 :::
52.WPST.9834_2021.docx time, the present petition be kept pending;
c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the respondent to take necessary steps in order to restrain the occupants from carrying out illegal repairs to the said building.
d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (b) above;
e) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require or as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the averments as made in the petition as also the photographs of the building to contend that the municipal corporation had issued a notice dated 17th October, 2020 to demolish the building. It is contended that the petitioners have made several representations to the municipal corporation to take appropriate action to demolish the said building which is lying in a dangerous condition and if it collapses, it would cause damage to human life and property.
3. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has also supported the contentions of the petitioners to state that the Municipal Corporation has already initiated action by issuing necessary notices. It is, however, stated that there are some residents in the building who are not vacating and are causing obstruction in the demolition of the building.
2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2021 20:48:33 :::
52.WPST.9834_2021.docx
4. Mr. Jaggi, learned counsel represents some of the occupants of the building, who had earlier filed Writ Petition (St.) Nos. 94520 and 97346 of 2020 (for short "the said Writ Petitions) which came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 15 th December, 2020. By an order passed on the present Writ Petition, a Vacation Bench of this Court by an order dated 19 th May, 2021 has directed that a copy of this petition be served on the petitioners, who are occupants of the building who had filed the said Writ Petitions and be given notice of the present proceedings so that they remain present at the hearing of this petition. Accordingly, Mr. Jaggi appears and has made submissions. Mr. Jaggi would also not dispute that the building is in a ruinous condition. He submits that his clients are ready to vacate their respective premises, however, his clients ought to be granted permanent alternate accommodation. Mr. Jaggi, however, on instructions, states that his clients shall vacate the premises within four weeks from today. He states that, however, the rights of his clients are required to be recognized for allotment of alternative premises in the redeveloped building.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no dispute that the building in question appears to be in a dilapidated condition and would be required to be vacated, as 3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2021 20:48:33 :::
52.WPST.9834_2021.docx already a notice has been issued by the Municipal Corporation to that effect. The endeavour of the Municipal Corporation would be to prevent any loss of life and property. It is stated that most of the residents have vacated the building, except some of them, who are represented by Mr. Jaggi. We may observe that in such circumstances, residents ought not to obstruct the demolition of the building by the Corporation as the building has admittedly become dangerous.
6. As regards any rights of the occupants for alternate accommodation, they would be entitled for such alternate premises in the redeveloped premises, however, they cannot have ownership rights in such premises as they would be required to be placed in the same position as stand on the day, they vacate their respective premises. This legal position is quite clear from the decision of the Division Bench in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 order dated 23 JUNE 2014), although such directions were in the context of the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, governed by the MMC Act, 1888, the principles as laid down by the Court in this regard would be squarely applicable in the present case when the question is of dilapidated building. The Division Bench in paragraph 9(l) has observed thus:
"9(l) The rights of the tenants and/or occupiers and/or owners in respect of 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2021 20:48:33 :::
52.WPST.9834_2021.docx the said premises/property will not be affected by virtue of evacuation or demolition carried out by the Corporation of such dilapidated and dangerous building in exercise of the power under section 354 of the said Act or by virtue of the fact that the Corporation is the owner of the premises. Such tenant and/or occupier and/or owner will been entitled to re-occupy the premises in respect of the same area after the reconstruction of the building, subject to the prevalent provisions of law pertaining to redevelopment of the property or subject to any arrangement or agreement arrived at by and between such tenants and/or occupiers with the owner of the building. Any action of evacuation/removal/demolition will not affect the inter se rights of owners if there be more than one owner or there is a dispute as to the title of the property."
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by the following order:
(i) We accept the statement of Mr.Jaggi that his clients shall vacate their respective premises within four weeks from today. An undertaking to that effect be placed on record.
(ii) In the event, such undertaking is not filed, the Municipal Corporation is free to proceed to initiate action in accordance with law and get the premises vacated for further action of demolition to be undertaken;
(iii) In regard to the rights of the occupants, they would be entitled to be placed in the same position as they stand today in the redeveloped premises proposed to be constructed as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra);5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2021 20:48:33 :::
52.WPST.9834_2021.docx
(iv) Before any action of vacating the occupants is taken, the respondent-Corporation and the petitioners shall undertake a joint measurement of the area in occupation of such occupants.
(v) After the building is vacated by the occupants, the Municipal Corporation or the landlord may undertake its demolition as may be permissible in law.
8. We clarify that we have not decided any of the other private rights of the occupants or the owners. All such contentions in that regard are expressly kept open.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2021 20:48:33 :::