Bombay High Court
Shobhnath Ramchandra Singh vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 5 April, 2023
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: G.S. Patel, Neela Gokhale
3-OSWPL-5089-20233.DOC
Ashwini V
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5089 OF 2023
Shobhnath Ramchandra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development
Authority & Anr ...Respondents
Mr HK Giri, with Dhinika Jain & Pratik Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Ms Aparna Vhatkar, for Respondent No. 1-MMRDA.
Mr Dinesh Masurkar, i/b Meena Kshirsagar, for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM: G.S. Patel &
Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 5th April 2023 PC:-
1. From the MMRDA's perspective there is no urgency. It claims that Room No. 117 has been 'allotted to someone else'.
2. Our order of 22nd February 2023 makes it abundantly clear that MMRDA would have been aware since March 2017 that the Petitioner was occupying Room No. 117 and that his possession was not in its inception unlawful or not juridical. He surrendered his own residence at the request of developer, the 2nd Respondent, admittedly working on a MMRDA project (for construction of a water tank). His house was demolished. The developer gave him Page 1 of 3 5th April 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2023 09:31:04 ::: 3-OSWPL-5089-20233.DOC possession of Room No 117. That was in March 2017. It is too late in the day for MMRDA to say in April 2023 -- a good six years later
-- that it was blissfully oblivious to all this. There is no explanation as to what MMRDA did from 2017 to 2023 if it maintains that the Petitioner's occupation of Room No. 117 was unlawful in its inception.
3. To say that the 2nd Respondent did the construction in three phases is no answer at all. In fact, MMRDA accepts that it took possession of the built structure from the 2nd Respondent.
4. We do not see how MMRDA, a public authority, can render the Petitioner and his entire family literally homeless without making alternate provisions. This is not our concept of the conduct of a public planning authority. These are not private landlords. We do not know under what conceptualization of law the MMRDA believes that it is empowered to render residents of this city homeless. The MMRDA is free to take whatever action that it wants against the 2nd Respondent.
5. This constant repeated refrain that the 'MMRDA had not given the premises to the Petitioner' is only to be stated to be rejected. Undoubtedly, the 2nd Respondent Developer put the Petitioner into possession but that was because the Petitioner's original structure had to be removed for the construction that the 2nd Respondent was doing for MMRDA. It is that construction that MMRDA has taken in three phases. Consequently, it is clear that MMRDA cannot fall back on the argument that the Petitioner had Page 2 of 3 5th April 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2023 09:31:04 ::: 3-OSWPL-5089-20233.DOC been allotted Room No. 117 by the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner has accepted possession of Room 117 in place of the premises already in his occupation.
6. It is open to the MMRDA to offer the Petitioner alternate accommodation if suitable in the same vicinity. Under no circumstances will MMRDA be permitted to render the Petitioner homeless.
7. Above all we have to bear in mind that the Petitioner was not in unlawful or unauthorized occupation of his original home. He surrendered it to the 2nd Respondent only for this project, which was required by MMRDA.
8. Consequently, the ad-interim order of 22nd February 2023 will continue until further orders.
9. List the Petition on 24th April 2023.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 3 of 3 5th April 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2023 09:31:04 :::