Bombay High Court
Shobhnath Ramchandra Singh vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 22 February, 2023
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: G.S. Patel, Neela Gokhale
502-OSWPL-5089-2023.DOC
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5089 OF 2023
Shobhnath Ramchandra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
MMRDA & Ors ...Respondents
Mr KH Giri, with Dhinika Shah, Pratik Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Ms Aparna Vhatkar, for Respondent No.1-MMRDA.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 22nd February 2023
PC:-
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV
1. Prima facie we are not satisfied that the impugned action of Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2023.02.22 evicting the Petitioner from Room No. 117, Building No.2, 18:13:00 +0530 MMRDA Project, City Survey No. 120 (Part) and 122, Hariyali Village, Mumbai Suburban, Maharishi Karve Nagar, Kanjur Marg (East), Mumbai 400 042 could be undertaken.
2. The short background of the matter is this. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, ("MMRDA"), the 1st Respondent, was constructing a building for Project Affected Persons. This was being done through the 2nd Respondent, SPARC Samudaya Nirman Sahayak. The development was on the plot in Page 1 of 4 22nd February 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 21:38:10 ::: 502-OSWPL-5089-2023.DOC question. Before 10th March 2017, the Petitioner had a house on plot of land which was part of City Survey No. 120 (Part) and 122. This was known as Sunka-Bai Chawl No. 6/22. The Petitioner had lived there with his family since before 1990 and has various documents itemised in paragraph 4 to show this. The Petitioner's room No. 6/22 was a 10 ft by 15 ft accommodation. It was partly on both lands. This house was not included in the Project Affected Persons development being done by MMRDA. It was however said to be part of a slum. The 2nd Respondent, which is absent though served, by a letter of 8th March 2017 informed the Petitioner that it was implementing the slum rehabilitation project. To do this, it needed to construct an underground water tank on the western side of the plot. That component almost touched the Petitioner's existing house. The underground tank required excavation and Petitioner was asked to vacate it. This was supposed to be as a precaution. The Petitioner was offered alternative accommodation in Room No. 117 until the completion of work of the underground water tank. This offer was made by the 2nd Respondent, not the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner shifted to Room No. 117. He claims that he was informed and reassured that on completion of the work he would be moved into a permanent accommodation. After a few months, the Petitioner's old house was demolished. Part of the land beneath it was covered with an underground water tank. Another part was under a boundary wall. The old house no longer exists.
3. On 8th February 2023, an officer from the 1st Respondent came to the Petitioner's Room No. 117, which he and his family have occupied since 2017, and pasted a notice demanding vacant Page 2 of 4 22nd February 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 21:38:10 ::: 502-OSWPL-5089-2023.DOC possession immediately, and in default threatened eviction with police assistance.
4. This is the notice that is challenged.
5. The matter was mentioned before us this morning. We granted circulation for this afternoon. After the Petition was served at about 12:30 pm or 12:40 pm it seems that the MMRDA has put its lock on Room No. 117 at about 2:30 pm thus locking out the Petitioner and his family from their only available residence.
6. Ms Vhatkar, learned Advocate for MMRDA needs time take instructions. That may be so, but it seems to us beyond any real controversy that MMRDA knew about the project being undertaken and was probably facilitating it. It may not itself have allotted Room No. 117 and the room may be belong to MMRDA but there is also little doubt that the allotment of that room to the Petitioner was for the purposes of project or at least the component of it that affected the Petitioner's old house. The Petitioner is perhaps right in saying that he has been cooperative. On a representation in writing he moved to in Room No. 117 and was then assured that he would not be dis-housed. Abruptly, he finds that he is threatened with eviction and quite literally being forced on the streets with his family.
7. It is difficult to see how between them the two Respondents can create a situation like this to the prejudice of the Petitioner. It is not as if the Petitioner has encroached or trespassed on Room No. Page 3 of 4 22nd February 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 21:38:10 ::: 502-OSWPL-5089-2023.DOC 117 just a few days ago. He has been there since 2017 and MMRDA surely cannot have been unaware of this.
8. While we issue notice to Respondent No. 2, and direct that in addition to service through Court private service including email, courier is permitted, and note that the 1st Respondent waives service, we will need to make an interim protective order on these facts. The Affidavits in Reply by both Respondents are to be filed by 10th March 2023.
9. In the meantime, the MMRDA will remove the lock that is placed on door of Room No. 117. That is to be done by 5.00 pm today. If it is not done the Petitioner is at liberty to break that lock. The Petitioner will not part with possession or create any third party rights in respect of Room No. 117 until further orders of the Court.
10. The notice that is pasted may remain but no coercive action of removal of the Petitioner is to be taken until the next date.
11. List the Petition on 16th March 2023.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 4 of 4 22nd February 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 21:38:10 :::