Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

31 January 2020

Case No.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18065 of 2018

Result

Dismissed

Bench

N.V. Ramana, Vineet Saran, V. Ramasubramanian

Citation

[2020] 5 S.C.R. 59 : 2020 INSC 117

Headnote

Municipalities:

Demolition of Chawl – By Municipal Corporation – Writ Petitions by one land-owner and 11 tenants – High Court directed allotment of alternative sites to the tenants and directed consideration of TDR to the land-owner – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Municipal Corporation having conceded before High Court to grant TDR to the land-owner, should not have come in appeal – In respect of 7 tenants, the Corporation has agreed to give alternate sites – So far as the remaining 4 tenants are concerned, direction of the High Court is not liable to be interfered with – Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

Dismissing the petitions, the Court

HELD: 1. In so far as persons claiming to be the owners of the land are concerned, the Municipal Corporation itself had conceded before the High Court that they were willing to offer TDR. After having stated so, the Municipal Corporation ought not to have come up with a special leave petition in respect of the land-owners. [Paras 15 and 16] [68-E-F; 69-B-C]

2.In so far as the eleven tenants are concerned, the Corporation agreed both before the High Court and before this Court that four of them are entitled to alternate accommodation. Therefore, the special leave petitions filed in respect of those four have also been disposed of by the Order dated 05.12.2018. [Para 17] [69-C-D]

3. In the affidavit of objections filed to the Report of the High Court Legal Services Committee, the Corporation has conceded that three out of the remaining seven tenants are also eligible. Therefore, ultimately the dispute has boiled down only to four tenants. [Para 18] [69-E]

4. The High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Municipal Corporation demolished the superstructures and took possession in a high handed manner. The Legal Services Committee has recorded a finding that the superstructures were in existence from a period prior to 1961. These findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, unless the findings shock the conscience of the Court. The findings of the High court are not perverse. Therefore, there is absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [Para 19] [69D-G]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. Challenging a common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of twelve writ petitions, granting the relief of allotment of alternative site to the petitioners in eleven writ petitions (tenants) and granting the relief of consideration of a request for grant of TDR (Transferable Development Rights)/DRC (Development Right Certificate) to the petitioners in one writ petition (owners of the land), the Municipal Corporation of Bombay has come up with the present special leave petitions. 2. We have hear

View Subscription Plans →