Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 63 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
Normally the licensee has a right to seek for damages
and may be restoration by filing a proper case under Section
6 of the Specific Relief Act, but in the opinion of this Court
the use of force is a factor which should be kept in mind by
this Court. The actions of State instrumentalities should be
informed by reason and guided by the law. A licensee, who is
6
(2012) 5 SCC 1
16
neither a proclaimed offender nor a rowdy sheeter etc., was
thrown out summarily by use of force. There is no allegation
of resistance / obstruction either. This process has also
started at 6 a.m. in the morning on 15.11.2020, which is also
a Sunday. This Court as mentioned earlier does not find any
rationale or reason behind this method. Whenever there is
arbitrariness in State's action Article 14 springs in. In
DwarkadasMarfaia and Sons v Board of Trustees of the
Port of Bombay7 the Supreme Court of India was dealing
with eviction only when the above principle was reiterated.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
In
the leading case of Olga Tellis and others v Bombay
Municipal Corporation and Others8the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India held that forceful eviction of pavement dwellers
affected their right to life under Article 21. The use of such
force in the opinion of this Court particularly in the facts and
circumstances of this case is absolutely uncalled for.
Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989
InKrishna Ram Mahale v ShobhaVenkata Rao9 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India strongly condemned the use
of force to take possession. In para 8/9 of the SCC report the
issue of license etc., was discussed and the Supreme Court
directed redelivery of possession through the Bombay High
Court Receiver. Therefore, in line with this judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India there shall be a direction in
this Writ itself to the respondents to redeliver the possession
7
(1989 3 SCC 293
8
(1985) 3 SCC 545
9
(1989) 4 SCC 131
17
of the property to the petitioner within seven days from the
date of pronouncement of this order. Thereafter, if they so
desire respondents shall initiate action strictly in accordance
with the provision of the contract and the law for the lawful
termination of the agreement and / or the eviction of the
petitioner. This order will not come in the way of the licensor
/ VMRDA from exercising any of its legal rights.