MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS. versus PANNA MAHESH CHANDRA DAVE AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 31-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS.
v.
PANNA MAHESH CHANDRA DAVE AND ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18065 of 2018)
JANUARY  31, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, VINEET SARAN AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
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
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 59
59
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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] [69-
D-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 18065 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 3085 of 2017.
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18212, 18289, 18399, 18599,
18336, 18376, 18210 of 2018.
Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Ms. Tanvi
Kakar, Ansh Pandey, Mrs. Preeti Purandare, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Ankit Yadav, Aditya Sidhra,
Nirnimesh Dube, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin
Patil, Advs. for the Respondents.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
2. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Bombay and Mr. Siddharth
Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting private
respondents.
3. The private respondents herein filed writ petitions on the file
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the demolition
of the superstructures put up by them on a plot of land bearing CTS
Nos.4009/1 to 4009/7 at Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, MSD Mumbai
400068. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 in Special Leave Petition
(C) No.18376 of 2018 (who were the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.3090 of 2017) was a little different from the case of the petitioners
in the other 11 writ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.