Bombay High Court
Dinkar Bhaburao Lokhnde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 January, 2022
Author: S. V. Gangapurwala
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
(1) wp-12527-2021.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12527 OF 2021
1. Dinker s/o Bhaburao Lokhande
Age: 72 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-193
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Wajid Ali s/o Mustafa Ali
Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-132
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Mohammad Hanif s/o Shaikh Mohammad Sarif
Age: 58 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-111
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Kusumbai w/o Jaganath Shinde
Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-03
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Sayyad Ali s/o Haider Ali
Age: 59 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-48
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
6. Suman Bai w/o Devidas Jadhav
Age: 72 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-123
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
7. Babarao s/o Baburao Girgoenker
Age: 77 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-164
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
8. Prashant s/o Laxuman Rao Kunde
Age: 65 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-15
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(2) wp-12527-2021.
9. Anjali w/o Anantrao Chiwate
Age: 45 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-113
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
10. Shaikh Bhikan s/o Shaik Amir
Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-193
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
11. Manorama w/o Audumbarrao Ghadge
Age: 75 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-159
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
12. Shabana w/o Karim Bhaksh Khan
Age: 46 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-110
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
13. Laxmi Bai w/o Vasantrao Belker
Age: 70 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-12
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
14. Vikas s/o Kisanrao Dhangare
Age: 48 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-82
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
15. Zohra Khatun w/o Mobin Khan
Age: 70 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-87
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
16. Damoder s/o Chagan Rathod
Age: 63 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-134
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
17. Hemant s/o Manohar Rao Mahale
Age: 48 years, Occ: Self Employee
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-38
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(3) wp-12527-2021.
18. Devidas s/o Prasadrao Balayya
Age: 48 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-136
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
19. Janabai w/o Nivrutti Vakude
Age: 72 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-131
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
20. Sukhdev s/o Bhaurao Pawar
Age: 79 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-114
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
21. Mujayat Khan s/o Taj Khan
Age: 29 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-145
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
22. Omerdaraj Khan s/o Husain Khan
Age: 69 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-144
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
23. Yunus Khan s/o Ismail Khan
Age: 64 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-146
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
24. Saik Laik s/o Samad Laik
Age: 41 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-69
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
25. Triveni w/o Kishanrao Tandle
Age: 73 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-27
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
26. Arvind s/o Dattapant Joshi
Age: 80 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-117
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(4) wp-12527-2021.
27. Saiyab Zakaira w/o Syeed Gause
Age: 56 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-99
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
28. Shri Ram s/o Wamanrao Arole
Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-41
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
29. Gulam Mohammed Khan s/o Dul Khan
Age: 72 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-8
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
30. Renuka w/o Jagdish Nilekar
Age: 34 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-139
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
31. Shehnaz w/o Rashid Shaikh
Age: 51 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-161
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
32. Shaikh Sadique s/o Abdula
Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-109
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
33. Sagarabai w/o Jalindar Kamble
Age: 65 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-192
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
34. Ujjwala w/o Sandeep Deshpande
Age: 40 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-50
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
35. Alka w/o Subash Gaikwad
Age: 39 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony, Bldg 2/3
Ghar No.44, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(5) wp-12527-2021.
36. Mahadev s/o Dnyandev Bansode
Age: 41 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-138
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
37. G. K. s/o Gavarkar
Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony Bldg 2/3
SRT No.43, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
38. Ravikant s/o Rangnathrao Dhongde
Age: 50 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-153
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
39. Gulam Rasool s/o Raj Mohammed Shaikh
Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-98
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
40. Vamman s/o Dada Avhad
Age: 74 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-58
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
41. Mabakini w/o Ambadas Joshi
Age: 72 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-68
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
42. Pathan Mauzam Ali Khan
Age: 54 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-5
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
43. Akbar s/o Jafar Khan
Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-80
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
44. Jaddi Mirfarakali s/o Jaddi Mir Jafar Ali
Age: 56 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-118
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(6) wp-12527-2021.
45. Mohammed s/o Ameeduddin Farukhi
Age: 77 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-23
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
46. Vijaykumar s/o Ramdas Sharma
Age: 78 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-148
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
47. Ashrafbi w/o Sayyed Mohameed
Age: 64 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-107
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
48. Suman w/o Uttamrao Khandare
Age: 75 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-135
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
49. Mohameed Raufuddin s/o Tamisuddin
Age: 81 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-85
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
50. Samdani Mohameed s/o Shaikh Maniruddin
Age: 45 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-28
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
51. Rukhiyabee w/o Sayaad Mayunuddin
Age: 80 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-92
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
52. Shaikh Yusubee w/o Shaikh Jilani
Age: 80 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-73
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
53. Suman w/o Someshwar Jhavalkar
Age: 75 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-02
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(7) wp-12527-2021.
54. Firoz Khan s/o Roushan Khan
Age: 54 years, Occ: Welder
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-143
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
55. Abdul Kalam s/o Abdul Rehman
Age: 53 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-93
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
56. Aziz Khan s/o Shahnoor Khan
Age: 72 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-37
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
57. Natwar s/o Bhika Ingale
Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-182
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
58. Mandabai w/o Janardhan Sable
Age: 62 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-151
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
59. Surekha w/o Dnyaneshwar Manore
Age: 70 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-163
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
60. Suman w/o Chandrakant Sonwane
Age: 70 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-65
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
61. Narayan s/o Kondiba Kamble
Age: 75 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-72
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
62. Abdul Ghani s/o Mohameed Ismail Dange
Age: 89 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-133
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(8) wp-12527-2021.
63. Shaikh s/o Habib Shiakh Mehmud
Age: 82 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-142
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
64. Radha Kishor s/o Ram Gupta
Age: 75 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-36
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
65. Shaikh Yakub s/o Mohameed Sharif
Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-36
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
66. Saiyad Ijhas Ulhaqf s/o Saiyed Abdul Haq
Age: 45 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony TRT-02
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
67. Nasrullah s/o Samirullaha Khaja
Age: 58 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony TRT-07
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
68. Virar Ahmed Khan s/o Mohammed Khan
Age: 69 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-01
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
69. Suhas s/o Prabhakar Bodas
Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-128
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
70. Vijay s/o Utamrao Shinde
Age: 42 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-158
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
71. Matin Khan s/o Mohiudin Khan
Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-122
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(9) wp-12527-2021.
72. Dattatrey s/o Balavant Kulkarni
Age: 90 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-166
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
73. Mahodali Khan
Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-33
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
74. Sanjay Anand Thorat
Age: 46 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-47
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
75. Ganpat s/o Sakharam Mahsne
Age: 76 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-165
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
76. Abdul Majid s/o Abdul Rahim
Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-105
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
77. Sangeeta w/o Manohar Kagbatte
Age: 44 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-125
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
78. Mangla w/o Digambar Lekurwalle
Age: 79 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-31
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
79. Mohammed Akbar s/o Mohameed Kasim
Age: 45 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-89
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
80. Kautikrao s/o Nathaji Narwade
Age: 68 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-52
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(10) wp-12527-2021.
81. Malti s/o Vastanrao Wagh
Age: 67 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-36
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
82. Nandkishor s/o Raghnath Jadhav
Age: 44 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-06
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
83. Kanir Khan s/o Jabbar Khan
Age: 72 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-35
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
84. Farin Khan w/o Nasir Khan
Age: 35 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-154
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
85. Akshay s/o Anil Kasliwal
Age: 25 years, Occ: Student
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-30
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
86. Abdul Rafik s/o Abdul Hamid
Age: 55 years, Occ: Occupation
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-108
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
87. Ujjawala s/o vinayak Fade
Age: 46 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-14
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
88. Balchandra s/o Shriram Josh
Age: 61 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-129
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
89. Vilas s/o Digamrao Kulkarni
Age: 75 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-35
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(11) wp-12527-2021.
90. Shayam s/o Nathaji Hirwale
Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony TRT-06
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
91. Prabhavati s/o Digamrao Pardhikar
Age: 90 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-116
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
92. Shamshad Begum w/o Ibrahim Khan
Age: 84 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-70
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
93. Charudatta s/o Bhanudas Dikshit
Age: 48 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-22
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
94. Rameshchandra s/o Bansi Lal Bhandari
Age: 85 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-18
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
95. Hairunnisa Begum w/o Meer Salamat Ali
Age: 85 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-08
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
96. Hidayat Khatoon w/o Taliv-Ur-Rahman
Age: 74 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-34
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
97. Mukund s/o Dattatray Mule
Age: 68 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-115
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
98. Shishirsh s/o Laxmikant Dev
Age: 53 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-19
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(12) wp-12527-2021.
99. Hari s/o Ramarao Bhalerao
Age: 66 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-194
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
100. Ramesh s/o Suryakant Kulkarni
Age: 65 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-188
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
101. Prabhakar s/o Piraji Tyde
Age: 60 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-25
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
102. Sayyad s/o Sayyad Ahsan Ali
Age: 42 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-43
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
103. Ramchandra s/o govind Asoleker
Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-07
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
104. Shaik Unus s/o Shaik Mehmud
Age: 42 years, Occ: Driver
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-29
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
105. Nita w/o Pandrinath Gangavne
Age: 47 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-30
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
106. Raghunath s/o Gangadharrao Kathar
Age: 38 years, Occ: Self Employee
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-10
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
107. Shamim Bano w/o Mohhamad Usuf
Age: 70 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-10
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(13) wp-12527-2021.
108. Rekha w/o Pravin Dive
Age: 35 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-189
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
109. Sayyad Suumaya Tabassum w/o Muzammin Ahmed
Age: 38 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-39
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
110. Sanjay s/o Nanasaheb Pawar
Age: 52 years, Occ: Private Job
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-106
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
111. Balasaheb s/o Dyneshwer Daithnker
Age: 48 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-124
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
112. Atul s/o Shaishkant Chapalgaonkar
Age: 72 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-22
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
113. Mohammed s/o shahik Ashak Husain
Age: 60 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT-40
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
114. Shaikh s/o Chand Shaikh Buland
Age: 65 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-18
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
115. Lodhi Badrunisa Begum w/o
Mohmeed Naimutullaha Khan
Age: 70 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-193
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
116. Famida Begum w/o Sarvar Mohinuddin
Age: 60 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-176
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(14) wp-12527-2021.
117. Ammena w/o Abdul Begum
Age: 60 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony Building 2/3,
House No.40 Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
118. Kishor s/o Uttamrao Kaushlya
Age: 38 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-181
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
119. Parmila w/o Balanath Divekar
Age: 52 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-150
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
120. Almaz s/o Sultana Raza Ali
Age: 41 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-167
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
121. Anil s/o Sheshrao Magre
Age: 55 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-28
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
122. Panchasheela w/o Subhash Gaikwad
Age: 45 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony Building 2,
House No.10, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
123. Kiran s/o Nivrutti Wagh
Age: 38 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-91
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
124. Soni w/o Ajay Salve
Age: 27 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony Building 2,
House No.27, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
125. Kailash s/o Sadashiv Wagh
Age: 64 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony Building 1,
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(15) wp-12527-2021.
House No.16, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
126. Meerabai w/o Lakshman Kamble
Age: 70 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony Building 2,
House No.5, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
127. Raiza Begum w/o Faruk Mohammad
Age: 48 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-137
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
128. Mohammed Ashfaq s/o Mohammed Iqbal
Age: 55 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-147
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
129. Mohammed Farooque s/o Mohammed Usman
Age: 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-89
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
130. Khairunnisa Begum w/o Fayyaz Ahmeed
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-172
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
131. Wasi Khan s/o Aziz Khan
Age: 63 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-173
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
132. Zakira Begum w/o Mirza Iqbal Baig
Age: 72 years, Occ: House Wife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-175
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
133. Kishore s/o Kannayalal Sadavale
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-195
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(16) wp-12527-2021.
134. Syed Gouse s/o Sayyad Kalimuddin
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-196
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
135. Chandrakant s/o Dattatray Kulkarni
Age: 75 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT-09
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
136. Fakirchand s/o Baderao Junaval
Age: 79 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 184
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
137. Prabhavathi w/o Pratapsingh Bayas
Age: 76 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony DRT 15
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
138. Mohammed Ekram Udin s/o Tamij Uddin
Age: 82 years, Occ: Retired
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 45
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
139. Syed Haroon Ali s/o Syed Rahmat
Age: 43 years, Occ: Service
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 32
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
140. Sarita w/o Ramkumar Saude
Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 42
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
141. Nurjahan Begum w/o Ahmed Ekbal
Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o. Labour Colony DRT 31
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
142. Zeenath Begum w/o Mubben Khan
Age: 25 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o. Labour Colony DRT
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(17) wp-12527-2021.
143. Khan Arshan Ali s/o Munawar Ali Khan
Age: 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 157
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
144. Chandrakant s/o Sakhaampanth Ambeker
Age: 60 years, Occ: Self Employee
R/o. Labour Colony SRT
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
145. Khairunnisa Begum w/o Fayyaz Ahmeed
Age: 65 years, Occ: Business
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 172
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
146. Kamal Sonaji w/o Bhamdae Sonaji
Age: 75 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
147. Anjali Anantrao Chivate
Age: 40 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o. Labour Colony SRT 113
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Public Work Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad.
3. The Collector,
Aurangabad.
4. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad.
5. The Additional Commissioner
and Designated Officer,
Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::
(18) wp-12527-2021.
6. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Aurangabad.
7. Maharashtra Housing and
Area Development Authority,
Through its Chairman,
At Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai - 400 051. ..Respondents
...
Ms. P. S. Talekar i/by M/s. Talekar and Associates,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel)
alongwith Mr. P. S. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and 6.
Mr. J. R. Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
Judgment Reserved on : 03.12.2021.
Judgment Pronounced on : 20.01.2022.
JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
1. The present petition is filed with multifarious prayers. The petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 in Writ Petition No.402/1985 with connected writ petitions and the judgment and order dated 12.07.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 on the ground that same were obtained by fraud. The petitioners also assail public eviction notice dated 31.10.2021 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Additional Commissioner and designated officer of the Municipal Corporation purportedly under Section 264 and 265-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (19) wp-12527-2021.
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1949'). The petitioners also seek directions against respondents to acquire the land by following due procedure. They rely on the judgment of the Civil Court in RCS No.350/2020 dated 10.09.2004. The petitioners seek directions against respondents to transfer the ownership of the tenements occupied by petitioners relying upon the Government Resolution dated 22.01.1964 and 05.04.1979.
2. The petitioners herein or their predecessors/ancestors were the employees of the Government. They were allotted the tenements by the Government for occupying them during their service tenure at Aurangabad. The eviction proceedings were initiated against these persons. In the year 1985 and 1987, various Writ Petitions were filed by these writ petitioners and their predecessors challenging the eviction notices and proceedings. The Division Bench of this Court under common judgment dated 22.11.1999 dismissed writ petitions filed by these persons bearing Writ Petition Nos.402/1985, 403/1985, 404/1985, 441/1985 and 494/1987 holding that, these persons are in illegal occupation of the respective tenements. They should vacate the tenements, so that it can be re-allotted to the Government servants posted at Auranagabad. The said judgment of this Court is upheld by the Apex Court. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment is dismissed. That some of these persons again filed ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (20) wp-12527-2021.
Writ Petition bearing No.5515/2008 seeking implementation of Government Resolution dated 22.01.1964 and to regularize the 40 Double Room Tenements and 10 Triple Room Tenements. The Division Bench of this Court under judgment and order dated 12.07.2011 dismissed the writ petition on two counts (i) suppression of material facts and
(ii) it is concluded fact that, tenements are not owned by the Housing Board, but are owned by the State of Maharashtra and is allotted to petitioners therein as Government employees. It was further observed that, petitioners are clinging to the quarters allotted to them though all of them are superannuated on their own admission. The Court deprecated their attitude. Subsequently, some attempts were made for eviction. The said eviction proceedings could not be taken up to its logical end either because of the intervention of the Hon'ble Ministers or the bureaucrats. Now, respondents have again taken up the task of evicting these persons. Notices are also issued purportedly under Section 264 and 265-A of the Act, 1949 by the Public Works Department and Municipal Corporation.
3. Ms. Talekar, learned counsel for petitioners strenuously submits that, the judgments delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.402/1985 with connected writ petitions dated 22.11.1999 and judgment and order dated 19.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 are on the basis of ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (21) wp-12527-2021.
fraud played by respondents-Authorities upon the Court. The two documents regarding transfer of land were submitted across the bar at the time of the final hearing. The certified copies of these documents demanded by the petitioners are denied under Right to Information on the ground of originals not being available. The Commissioner in his communication dated 17.08.1987 has clearly stated that, no documents of ownership are available in the record. This would substantiate that, the land was a private land. No land acquisition proceedings were initiated. Still the State Government represented before this Court in the earlier proceedings, that the land is owned by the Public Works Department and therefore, the Government had every authority to evict the tenements. The learned counsel submits that, the judgment obtained by fraud is null and void, ab initio and has no binding effect. The learned counsel to substantiate the said contentions relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of A. V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of A. P. and Others reported in 2007 (4) SCC 221.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that, under Government Resolution dated 22.01.1964 several labour colony tenements in the State were transferred to the respective Housing Boards and declaration under Section 54(A)(2) of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 was made. A mention is also made of Aurangabad Labour Colony.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(22) wp-12527-2021.
The learned counsel submits that, Official Gazette dated 27.05.1971 evidences initiation of land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, however no Award is passed in respect of the Labour Colony, Aurangabad. Heavy reliance is placed by Ms. Talekar, learned counsel on Government Resolution dated 05.04.1979 to submit that, ownership of tenements in such labour colonies are to be transferred to occupants on the payment of nominal purchase price. According to the learned counsel, the policy was earlier not made applicable to Labour Colony at Aurangabad since it was used as rental premises by the Government for housing the government servants. Except Aurangabad Labour Colony, the tenements in such Labour Colonies at other places in the State of Maharashtra were transferred to the allottees. The petitioners are discriminated on the ground that, the tenements are owned by the Government and not by the Housing Board. No document exists evidencing the ownership of the State. The learned counsel submits that, the eviction proceedings were kept in abeyance by the order of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister on 02.08.2000. Earlier thereto, the Secretary, Public Works Department directed stay of the eviction proceedings of the occupants at Labour Colony Aurangabad under communication dated 04.12.1999. From time to time, the stay was granted to the eviction proceedings and the same is evident from the communication between the District Collector, Aurangabad and Superintending Engineer.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(23) wp-12527-2021. The learned counsel also relies upon the communication dated 19.09.2007 by the Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department to Superintending Engineer, stating that, out of 250 tenements, 200 tenements were purchased by the Public Works Department, whereas 50 tenements were transferred to MHADA, but no action is taken by MHADA. The learned counsel relies upon the Circular dated 23.04.2008 to submit that, the Government servants residing in quarters for more than 20 years shall on payment of carpet rate be transferred ownership of the quarter in their names. The learned counsel relied on the affidavit filed by the Government and MHADA in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 to submit that, 200 tenements were transferred to Public Works Department and 50 tenements to MHADA, but transfer to MHADA did not take place. The learned counsel submits that, land belongs to the private person. The said person has exercised his civil right over the same and obtained perpetual injunction against the Government from creating third party interest or changing the nature of the property under order dated 23.07.2009 in RCS No.350/2000. The said order has become final. In view of that, the Government or any of its official have no right to parade themselves as the owners. More particularly, without they ever having passed an Award for acquisition of the said land any attempt to demolish the building and to develop the said land by putting to some other use is illegal. The learned counsel submits that, under the Government ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (24) wp-12527-2021.
Resolution dated 12.01.1989 the Government granted parity to the government servants at Abudayanagar, Kala Chowki (Mumbai), but not to the residents of the Labour Colony Aurangabad. The same is improper.
5. The learned counsel submits that, petitioners have fresh cause of action to file writ petition, as notices are issued and petitioners challenged the impugned notice dated 30.10.2021 issued under Section 264 and 265-A of the Act, 1949 giving rise to a fresh cause of action, so also earlier judgments are assailed. The learned counsel submits that, some photo copies are placed on record by the Government and the Public Works Department to suggest that, the transfer of tenements have taken place in favour of the Government. The stray entries and the photo copies of stray entries at the best reveal the price of the transaction, but does not further provide information regarding the transfer transaction. The non-existence of any documents of transfer is evident from the communication dated 17.08.1987 made by the Commissioner, Aurangabad to Secretary, Public Works Department. Under Right to Information also the certified copies of the documents pertaining to the purchase transactions done by Public Works Department were not supplied because the original documents were not available. All these aspects clearly depict that, the Government is not the owner of the property inter alia has no right to evict the petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(25) wp-12527-2021. 6. The learned counsel for petitioners
further submits that, the impugned notices issued for eviction on the ground that the structures are in dilapidated condition suffer from legal infirmities and the same does not have any binding effect. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 6 Bombay CR 860 and another judgment in case of Mr. Jaswant Shivlal Chandarana and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No.9757/2013 with connected writ petitions dated July 18, 2017. The learned counsel submits that, the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgments has laid down the policy and guidelines for conducting structural audit. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The policy and guidelines under the said judgment are applicable to the owner as well as the occupants. According to the said judgment the Corporation has to act in accordance with law and the Corporation before classifying a building under category C-1, is required to conduct its own independent inspection and assessment with the help of the Engineers of their Department and carry out a survey of such buildings. The report pursuant to the Structural Audit shall be taken into account. If the owners and/or the occupants bring conflicting reports on the status of the building, the Corporation is required to refer the matter to ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (26) wp-12527-2021.
Technical Advisory Committee. In the present case, the petitioners have placed on record the structural audit report of the Government approved registered Structural Engineer/Auditor showing that, the structures are perfectly habitable and some structures only require minor repairs.
7. The learned counsel submits that, the guidelines laid down in the said judgment have been flouted by the respondents. No specific test like ultrasonic pulse velocity test, rebound hammer test, half cell potential test, carbonation depth test, core test, chemical analysis, cement aggregate ratio are conducted before issuing the notices. More over, the rights of the occupants are not affected by the demolition carried out by the Corporation of dilapidated building. Such tenements or occupiers would still be entitled to occupy the premises after reconstruction of building. The officers of the respondents, even did not enter into the premises and have given the reports without even inspecting it from inside. In view of that, the said notices are illegal.
8. Ms. Talekar, learned counsel submits that, no eviction by force can be sustainable in law. It is necessary as per the Act, 1949 to give 30 days personal notice. The respondents-Authorities are merely paving the way to execute their grand project at the cost of livelihood of thousands. The same is evident from the proposals, letters and Government Resolutions. The acts of respondents ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (27) wp-12527-2021.
are illegal and deserve to the quashed and set aside.
9. Mr. Dhorde, learned senior Advocate and special counsel for the State of Maharashtra submits that, the earlier judgment delivered by this Court operates as res-judicata. The filing of a second writ petition is misconceived. The same deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. The senior counsel relies on the following judgments to substantiate its submissions:
1. Beerbal Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 675.
2. Kaushi Cooperative Building Society Vs. N. Parvathamma and Others reported in (2017) 13 SCC
138.
3. Shiv Chander More and Others Vs. Leiutenant Governor and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744.
10. The learned senior Advocate further submits that, the filing of present writ petition is an abuse of process of Court. The reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of K.S.B Ali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 11 SCC 277. The learned senior Advocate further submits that, it is duty of the petitioners to disclose in its pleadings all the material facts and to approach the Court with clean hands. Failure to disclose all the material facts amounts to suppression and this Court would not entertain the writ petition on the said count. The ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (28) wp-12527-2021.
learned senior counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Others Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wahg Education Society and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531. The learned senior counsel submits that, petitioners did not disclose in their pleadings that, the Nawab Yusufoddin Khan had filed Suit bearing RCS No.566/2014 for injunction, restraining the present respondents from evicting the occupants from the tenements at Labour Colony. The said Suit is unconditionally withdrawn. The withdrawal amounts to dismissal. As the Suit is unconditionally withdrawn, the same stands dismissed. This fact ought to have been brought on record properly by the petitioners. Even some of the petitioners had filed Suit bearing RCS No.795/2008 for perpetual and mandatory injunction. The relief was sought that, the Defendants therein i.e. present respondents be directed to allot and declare the ownership of Suit property to the Plaintiffs as in other Suits. The said Suit was dismissed.
11. The learned senior Advocate submits that, authoritative pronouncement has been made by this Court upon the rights of the parties, in the earlier Writ Petition bearing No.402/1985 with connected writ petitions under judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 and judgment and order dated 19.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.5515/2008. The petitioners now cannot re-agitate the same issue.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(29) wp-12527-2021.
It has been held by the Division Bench that the State is the owner of the property. Even the amount has been paid for the transfer. The respondents have not suppressed any facts or played fraud in the earlier proceedings before this Court. The property is owned by the Government. Maharashtra Housing Board does not claim the ownership over the property. The learned senior counsel submits that, petitioners have no right to retain the occupation. As per the survey conducted by the Government, majority of the occupants are the private persons. The original allottees have either illegally transferred the same to the private persons. The list has been placed on record alongwith the affidavit that barring few, majority of the tenements are occupied by private persons who were not the original allottes. The original allottees have illegally transferred it.
12. The statement of the State that original allottees have transferred tenements to the private persons is denied by the petitioners.
13. The learned senior counsel further submits that, tenements are constructed almost 70 years back. There are 200 Single Room Tenements (SRT), 40 Double Room Tenements (DRT) and 10 Triple Room Tenements (TRT), so also there are Type-I building G+1 and Type-II building G+3, total 8 buildings having 88 tenements. Total 338 tenements exist. The original allottees were serving with the Government of Maharashtra in various departments at ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (30) wp-12527-2021.
the relevant period. The allotment of the tenements to the erstwhile Government employees was purely for their service period and not permanently. The allotment orders also clearly lay down the terms and conditions. The terms of the allotment were also clear that, in case of transfer, the employee can retain the quarter for one month only and on retirement he has to vacate the quarter within two months. Letting out the quarter to other persons is illegal. Each and every person who was allotted the Government quarters at Labour Colony Aurangabad had either retired or deceased as on the date. Even as per the pleadings of petitioners, only petitioner no.42 is in Government service as on the date. None of the persons are in Government service. They are not legally entitled to claim the reliefs. They have no right to maintain the present petition.
14. It is further contended by the learned senior Advocate that, the petitioners or their ancestors were not the industrial workers and that they were the employees of the Government of Maharashtra, as such the Government Resolution dated 22.01.1964 and 05.04.1979 are not applicable to petitioners. All the tenements at Labour Colony are purely service quarters made for temporary residence of Government employees. They are not meant for allotment to the lower income group under the Group Housing Scheme. It is erroneous to contend that one Mr. Nawab Yusufoddin Khan is owner ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (31) wp-12527-2021.
of the land. The petitioners were not Plaintiffs in RCS No.350/2000 filed by him nor the tenements constructed by Public Works Department were part of the Suit bearing RCS No.350/2000 filed by Nawab Yusufoddin Khan. The judgment in RCS No.350/2000 has been challenged by filing Appeal and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.16/2020 and the same is pending. The said decree has not attained finality. More over, subsequently, Suit filed by Nawab Yusufoddin Khan in RCS No.566/2014 by which he claimed perpetual injunction against present respondents (Defendants in the said Suit) from evicting the occupants of 338 tenements has been unconditionally withdrawn on 01.03.2017. The withdrawal amounts to dismissal of the Suit.
15. According to the learned senior Advocate, all the tenements are old tenements, constructed almost 70 years back. The basement, slabs, walls, lintels, plaster, concrete of all the structures have deteriorated. The structural audit has been conducted by the Government College of Engineering. The Department of Applied Mechanics, Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad personally inspected all 338 tenements physically and submitted the structural audit report alongwith photographs of the tenements. They are placed on record. As per the structural audit report, there is corrosion of reinforcement in the said tenements. The structures are found to be in highly damaged condition and not fit for ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (32) wp-12527-2021.
accommodation. For the larger interest of the life, safety of the residents also it is expedient to pull down the dilapidated structures which are tilted as on date. Fatalities my result if the highly dilapidated tenements are not pulled down. The impugned notices are rightly issued. The staff of respondent no.6 has conducted door to door survey of all the 338 tenements. Accordingly survey report has been submitted in the office of respondent no.6 reporting the details about the persons actually residing in the 338 tenements. From the survey report it is revealed that, private persons who are not in service of the State of Government are presently residing in the said service quarters. It is also revealed that, the petitioner nos.2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 19, 20, 26, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, 44, 45, 51, 52, 58, 53, 64, 65, 66, 70, 73, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 102, 103, 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147 are not residing in the said tenements. It has further been observed in the survey conducted by the office of respondent no.6 that, retired Government employees and L.Rs of certain deceased employees have illegally transferred the service quarters at Labour Colony to unauthorized persons, who were and are not in service of the State Government. They are by way of sale on Bond papers and by leasing out Government quarters. These unauthorized encroachments are required to be ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (33) wp-12527-2021.
removed and the dilapidated structures demolished in larger public interest.
16. The learned senior Advocate submits that, the tenements are load bearing structures. There are no RCC columns and beams in the said structures. The structural audit team was given access to all the tenements by the concerned residents for the purpose of inspection. The team has followed the methodology of visual observation and also have conducted rebound hammer test and the observations have been recorded which is clarified in the report itself. It has been opined that, the serviceability of all these buildings are seriously affected. The structural inspection report submitted by petitioners are totally inconsistent and irrelevant. They cannot be considered. According to the learned senior counsel, petitioners are not legitimate owners nor the legitimate occupiers of the tenements. They are required to vacate the same. The petition deserves to be dismissed.
17. The Regular Civil Suit No.295/2008 and Regular Civil Appeal No.136/2014 filed by petitioner nos.59 and 60 for similar relief has been dismissed by the Civil Court under judgment dated 10.04.2014 and the Appeal by the Ld. Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Aurangabad under judgment dated 06.10.2021. The petitioner nos.59 and 60, though had filed Civil Suit also filed present writ petition.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(34) wp-12527-2021. 18. Upon having considered the pleadings of
the parties and submissions advanced at the bar it does not appear to be a matter of dispute that the tenements at Labour Colony Aurangabad were allotted to the Government servants during their continuance of service at Aurangabad. The specific allotment letters were issued to them. The terms and conditions of allotment letters specifically provide that, the allottee is required to vacate the Government quarters on its transfer out of Aurangabad, so also has to vacate it upon his retirement. The quarters were basically of three types i.e. Single Room Tenement (SRT), Double Room Tenement (DRT) and Triple Room Tenement (TRT). It is also not a matter of debate and petitioners also claim that all these tenements were allotted to them or their ancestors, as they were in Government service. The allotment letters annexed by petitioners also establishes the said fact.
19. It does not appear to be a matter of dispute that, all these petitioners or their predecessors, who were original allottees have retired from Government service. The petitioners herein and/or their predecessors were confronted with the eviction notice in the year 1985. They filed Writ Petition bearing No.402/1985, 403/1985, 404/1985, 441/1985 and 494/1987. This Court under its judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 dismissed the writ petitions by a detailed judgment. In the ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (35) wp-12527-2021.
said Writ Petitions present petitioners or their predecessors claimed benefit of the Government Resolution dated 05.04.1979 with a request to transfer the Government tenements in their occupation to them on ownership basis. In the said writ petitions reliance was placed by petitioners on the Resolution dated 09.02.1970 issued by the Central Government and 05.04.1979 of the State Government. The directions were sought to implement the scheme as contemplated under the said Government Resolutions. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition under judgment dated 22.11.1999 observed that, the petitioners during the pendency of the petition resorted to illegal construction extending the plinth area of the respective tenements. The petitioners were allotted tenements upon their application and/or furnishing undertaking to vacate premises on transfer from Aurangabad and/or superannuation. The Court further held that, tenements were purchased by the then Government of Bombay by remitting an amount of Rs.5,59,7000/- and the documents in support of the transfer entry to this effect i.e. change of ownership have also been brought on record and it is evident that the Government has been paying Municipal taxes of these tenements right from 1960 onwards. Even the repairs and maintenance of these tenements is done by the Government. The Court held that, the tenements were not the property of the erstwhile Hyderabad Housing Board and they were at no point ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (36) wp-12527-2021.
of time transferred to the Housing Board of the then Bombay State. The Court further held that, Resolution dated 05.04.1979 was applicable only to the industrial workers and the persons from the weaker sections of the society and was applicable in respect of the tenements built by the Housing Board and not by the State Government. The said scheme under Government Resolution dated 05.04.1979 is not applicable to the tenements in the Labour Colony at Aurangabad. Other properties of Labour Colonies transferred such as at Abudayanagar, Kala Chowki (Mumbai) was not the property of Government. They were the tenements taken up by the Government on the rental basis from the Housing Board. The Court negatived the contentions of petitioners therein holding that, the subject tenements are earmarked as a common pool Government servants quarters, petitioners have no vested right to seek relief by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. Apart from the above, another writ petition came to be filed by some of the petitioners or their predecessors bearing Writ Petition No.5515/2008 seeking similar reliefs. The said Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, so also on the ground that it is concluded fact that the tenements are not owned by the Housing Board, but owned by the State of Maharashtra allotted to petitioners as Government employees and that the Government ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (37) wp-12527-2021.
Resolution dated 22.01.1964 would not be applicable. The attitude of the petitioners was deprecated.
21. It has been conclusively established in the writ petitions filed earlier, that the Housing Board is not the owner of the property. The Government has paid an amount of Rs.5,59,700/- for the transfer of the ownership of the tenements. The Maharashtra Housing Board also does not claim ownership rights over the said tenements. As such, it is futile on the part of petitioners to agitate and re-agitate the same issue. Only because original documents are not available now would not be sufficient to establish that, fraud was played by the State in the earlier proceedings. The affidavit filed by the State Government in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 also clarifies that the tenements at Aurangabad were not handed over to the Maharashtra Housing Board. The Maharashtra Housing Board on enactment of MHADA Act, 1976 came to be dissolved and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) is formed and the tenements which were handed over to the Maharashtra Housing Board became the estate of the MHADA. The tenements which became estate of MHADA became subject to the application of MHADA Act, 1976. The Government of India decided to sale these tenements constructed for industrial workers and for low income groups and which were allotted on rental basis by hire purchase or out right sale.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(38) wp-12527-2021.
This decision was taken in the year 1978. As per the directions of the Government of India, the State of Maharashtra decided to convert the tenements on rental basis to hire purchase or out right sale basis. The Resolution to that effect was passed on 05.04.1979. MHADA implemented the Government Resolution and converted the tenements in the said Labour Colonies from rental to hire purchase or out right sale. The tenements at Aurangabad were not handed over to housing board and the tenements are in possession of Public Works Department and they are used as service quarters. MHADA has also filed affidavit-in-reply in the Writ Petition No.5515/2008 thereby clarifying that, the tenements in Labour Colony, Aurangabad are constructed by the then Hyderabad Government and handed over to the Government of Maharashtra on reorganization of States. The tenements at MHADA were not handed over. The 50 tenements were also not handed over to MHADA as is clarified in the affidavit. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit that, the 200 tenements were also purchased by the Government. The MHADA at no point of time claimed its right over the tenements at Labour Colony Aurangabad.
22. All these aspects would establish that, MHADA at no material point of time claimed its right over the tenements at Labour Colony Aurangabad and that the Government continued to own the tenements. We do not find an element of fraud ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (39) wp-12527-2021.
on the part of the respondents/State in earlier proceedings viz. Writ Petition No.402/1985 with connected writ petitions decided under judgment 22.11.1999 and Writ Petition No.5515/2008 dated 12.07.2011. Inter alia it cannot be said that these judgments are as a result of fraud.
23. Moreover, petitioners claim their occupation over the tenements from the Government, pursuant to they or their predecessors to be in Government service. The tenement was a facility provided to them in service for accommodation. The petitioners or their predecessors are claiming their occupation over the tenements from the Government. They do not have any right to deny the title of the Government from whom they were inducted in possession nor any other entity or a persons is claiming a better title than the Government. It is futile to enter into the debate in this regard. The person who is inducted in possession cannot deny the title of a person who has inducted him in occupation, unless the person inducted in occupation claims a better title. It is also to be noted that, as far as the issue of ownership of the Government is concerned the same has been set to rest in the earlier judgments. There is no reason to again enter into the rigmarole of the ownership right. Nonetheless, petitioners are not claiming ownership rights nor they can claim ownership over the tenement in their occupation. In light of the above, it is not open ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 ::: (40) wp-12527-2021.
for the petitioners to deny the ownership right of the Government.
24. The petitioners have also emphasised much upon the legality of public notice under Section 264 and 265-A of the Act, 1949. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and another judgment in case of Mr. Jaswant Shivlal Chandarana and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has laid down the guidelines of the manner in which the structural audit has to be based. In the present case, petitioners do not have any right to retain the occupation of the tenements. The person who does not get a right to occupy and remain in possession of a tenement does not have locus to assail the impugned notices on the ground that the procedure and the test required as per the guidelines of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) are not performed. The Government and Corporation have also placed on record reports issued by the Department of the Applied Mechanics, Government Engineering College, Aurangabad. We may not enter into the said aspects, as in our opinion petitioners would not have any legal right to agitate against the same. The petitioners do not have legal right to continue occupying tenements having suffered earlier adjudication.
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::(41) wp-12527-2021.
25. In the result, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
26. In view of the existing scenario due to Covid-19 pandemic the respondents may not take coercive steps against petitioners for the period of two months. On lapse of two months, present protection shall come to an end.
(R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/January-22
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 23:51:31 :::