Bombay High Court
Smt. Sakuntala Gurusharan Barai And Anr vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 20 April, 2022
Author: Sandeep K. Shinde
Bench: Sandeep K. Shinde
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN 24-AO-268-2019.odt
SHIVGAN Date:
2022.04.21
10:41:28
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.268 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.317 OF 2019
Smt. Sakuntala Gurusharan Barai
and Anr. ...Appellants
Vs
The Municipal Corporation of Gr.
Mumbai and Ors. ... Respondents
...
Mr. P.J.Thorat i/by Mr. B.S.Shukla for the Appellants. Mr. Dharmesh Vyas with Mr.R.Y.Sirsikar for R.No.1-MCGM. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, AGP for State-Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : APRIL 20, 2022.
P.C. :
It is not in dispute that plaintiffs hold a photo-pass issued by the Government in terms of Section 3X(b) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. The photo-pass was issued in 1976. It is at Page 57 of the appeal- memo. Area of the dwelling structure in respect of which photo-pass has been issued, admeasures 10' x 15'. Once, the photo-pass is issued, occupier becomes the protected occupier of the structure. The Shivgan 1/3 24-AO-268-2019.odt Mumbai Municipal Corporation has framed a bottle-neck policy wherein the eligibility of beneficiary of policy is outlined. In category 'A', authorised structure, tolerated structure, residential structure existing prior to 17th April, 1964 and commercial structures existing prior to 1st April, 1962 are included. Category 'B' includes structures protected under the "State Government Policy" existing prior to 1 st January, 2000. It is Corporation's case that photo-passes issued to the plaintiffs were cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 15th July, 2000. It is under these circumstances, Corporation had issued a notice to the plaintiffs under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
2 Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the order of the State Government dated 15 th July, 2000 does not contemplate cancellation of photo-pass. To put it differently, appellants' case is that Suit Structure falls in category 'B', being 'Protected Structure' by the State, that was existing prior to 1 st January, 2000. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the Corporation, disputes submissions of Mr. Thorat, in view of the State's order Shivgan 2/3 24-AO-268-2019.odt dated 15th July, 2000.
3 In that view of the matter, the State shall clarify its' order dated 15th July, 2000 (At Page 27 of the Civil Application) by filing affidavit within three weeks from today. 4 Be it noted, admitting, the Suit Structure is 'protected', being photo-pass was issued, yet, protection is limited to the area shown in the photo-pass and not beyond that. Stand over to 28 th June, 2022.
5 Ad-interim order granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Shivgan 3/3