Bombay High Court
Rakesh Laxman Sutar And Ors vs The Commissioner, Thane Municipal ... on 24 February, 2021
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: Dipankar Datta, G. S. Kulkarni
904.WPSt1849_2021.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 1849 OF 2021
Prakash Laxman Sutar & Ors. .. Petitioners
vs.
The Commissioner, Thane Municipal
Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 1630 OF 2021
Smt. Shashikala Chandrakant Pirankar .. Petitioner
vs.
The Commissioner, Thane Municipal
Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 1016 OF 2021
Smt. Manda Suresh Phutane & Ors. .. Petitioners
vs.
The Commissioner, Thane Municipal
Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 1385 OF 2021
Smt. Samiksha Satyavan Kadam & Ors. .. Petitioners
vs.
The Commissioner, Thane Municipal
Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Pratap J. Thorat a/w. Ms. Aditi S. Naikare i/b. Mr. Pradeep H.
Patole for the petitioners.
Mr. Mandar Limaye for Thane Municipal Corporation in
WP/1849/2021 and WP/1630/2021.
Mr. N.R. Bubna a/w. F.A. Wasif for Thane Municipal Corporation
in WP/1016/2021.
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :- FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
1/5904.WPSt1849_2021.doc PC :
1. These petitions challenge a common notice dated November 25, 2020 issued by the respondent-Thane Municipal Corporation proposing to demolish the premises belonging to the petitioners to undertake the project of road widening from Diva Railway Station (East) to Diva Circle. The impugned notices state that the petitioners would be provided with alternate accommodation at sites as are set out in the said notices. The petitioners are accordingly called upon to vacate their respective premises within 15 days, failing which an action as per the law would be initiated against the petitioners.
2. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the notice structures are authorized and legal. It is his contention that if such be the case, then it is expected of the Municipal Corporation to follow due procedure in law to evict the petitioners from their legitimate premises.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Bubna and Mr. Limaye, learned counsel for the municipal corporation submit that the structures are unauthorized. It is contended that the petitioners hence would have no legal right to occupy such 2/5
904.WPSt1849_2021.doc structures. It is submitted that some of the structures do not have an Occupation Certifcate, hence such structures in no manner can be held to be authorized structures. It is, however, stated that despite this position, the Municipal Corporation is ready to provide an alternate accommodation to the petitioners.
4. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that his clients are not agreeable to accept such ofer of an alternate accommodation or a future allotment in a proposed cluster development as ofered by the Municipal Corporation. His only contention is that the Corporation ought to follow the procedure in law if it intends to evict the petitioners from the present premises.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for sometime in the morning session, we passed over the matter to be heard in the second session so as to enable the learned counsel for the Corporation to take instructions, as to whether the municipal corporation is agreeable to follow the procedure in law under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act to evict the petitioners by withdrawing the impugned notices. 3/5
904.WPSt1849_2021.doc
6. Learned counsel for the Corporation have taken instructions from Mr. Mahesh Ahir, Designated ofcer, Diva Ward Committee of the Thane Municipal Corporation to state that the Municipal Corporation is prepared to withdraw the impugned notices and follow the procedure in law under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act and other relevant provisions provided the petitioners give up their claim for any alternate accommodation as ofered or for any right for allotment of any premises in the cluster development.
7. Learned counsel Ms. Naikare now appearing for the petitioners with Mr. Thorat, on instructions, has re-stated that her clients are not interested to have any alternate accommodation or any allotment in the cluster development.
We accept the statement as made on behalf of the petitioners.
8. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the petitions by the following order:
a) The statement as made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the impugned notices stand withdrawn and that now the Municipal Corporation shall follow the due procedure in law to initiate appropriate action against the petitioners in the event the 4/5
904.WPSt1849_2021.doc municipal corporation seeks eviction of the petitioners from their premises for the purpose of the project in question, is accepted.
b) The petitioners in that event shall not have any claim whatsoever or any alternate accommodation as set out in the impugned notices as also in the proposed cluster development;
9. Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
No costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Digitally signed by Vidya Vidya Amin S. S. Date:
Amin 19:58:57 2021.02.24 +0530 5/5