RAM PRASAD YADAV & ORS. versus CHAIRMAN, BOMBAY PORT TRUST & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 29-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM PRASAD YADAV & ORS. 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, BOMBAY PORT TRUST & ORS. 
MARCH 29, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND M.H. KANIA, J.] 
·.~. 
Constitution of India 1950: Article 136. Problem of hutment 
dwellers-A human problem-removal of hutments-Causes untold 
hardship and misery-Provision of alternative sites-Whether a condi-
tion precedent. 
A 
B 
c 
. 
Practice and Procedure: Hutment dwellers-Removal of-
)- -Appointment of Commission for identification of beneficiaries in terms 
of 'cut off date fixed by interim order of Court-Whether ground for 
extending 'cut off date. 
Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 
D 
1947-Applicability of-To Bombay Port Trust Lands. 
In May 1985, some of the hutments in the Bombay Port Trust 
'< lands were cleared by the Port Trust and these hutments were demo-
lished. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court 
for restraining the Bombay Port Trust from carrying out any further 
E 
demolition of the hutments. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single 
-<. 
Judge of the High court. An appeal preferred against the order of the 
Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench. Hence the appeal by 
• 
special leave to this Court. 
By an interim order dated 27th January 1986 a Division ~nch of F 
.4f this Court fixed a cut off date as January l, 1981 for the purpose of 
granting relief in the form of providing alternative sites to the hutment 
dwellers and directed that those hutment dwellers who have been con· 
tinuously in occupation for at least two years prior to January l, 1981 
shall not-be thrown out unless and until, alternative sites are provided 
to them for occupation. A Commission was also appointed to identify 
G 
,.\ the persons who were eligible for alternative sites in terms of the 
aforesaid interim order. In its report submitted on 4th November 1986, 
the Commission pointed out that only 50 hutment dwellers could satisfy 
the Commission that they were living on the site for a period of two 
years prior to the cut off date. The other hutment dwellers were unable 
~~~ 
H 
173 
174 
SUPREME i · 
.RT REPORTS 
[19891 2 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that (i) in view of the 
time whieh has gone by, cot off date fixed by this Court should be r 
extended, and (ii) the policy of the State of Maharashtra was not to evict 
unauthorised occupants on public lands except after providing them 
alternative accommodation. 
B 
Disposing of the special leave petition, it was, 
.j 
HELD: 1. The problem of hutment dwellers is a human problem 
~-
and the removal of hntments is bonnd to cause an untold hardship 
and misery to the occupants. However, on that consideration, the 
.. 
Bombay Port Trust cannot be prevented from potting its land to its 
c 
own use. [178C] 
2. Once the cut off date has been fixed by this Court, there is no ~ 
basis for extending the cot off date merely because time has gone by 
since that would render the entire task given to the Commission futile. 
Moreover, doing so would run counter to the intention of this Court in 
D 
making the aforesaid order which was to protect only those hutment 
dwellers who had been in occupation for at least two years prior to 
1.1.1981. In view of the fact that no policy statement of the Government 
of the State of Maharashtra was pointed out it cannot be taken into 
account. Moreover, the Port Trust land cannot be regarded as public 
land in occupation of the Government, either the Central Government 
y 
E 
or the State Government. [177E-H] 
2.1. Under the circumstances, directed that the said 50 hntment 
:.. 
dwellers along with their families who had been identified by the Com-
mission as having occupied the said hntments for two years or more 
' 
prior to the cot off date, namely, 1.1.1981, shall not, be removed from t 
F 
their hutments and their hntments shall not be demolished except after 
provision of alternative sites for them. The Port Trust will be at liberty • 
to remove these hutments after giving alternative sites to these hutment 
dwellers.-{I77H; 178A-B] 
3. It is not possible for this Court to say whether there would be a 
G 
greater injury to public interest by the removal of the unauthorised 
I· 
hntment dwellers or by preventing the Port Trost from putting its own 
land to a proper use. [178C-D) 
4. The State Government or the Central Government or even 
the Bombay Port Trust may make some provision for providing 
H 
alternative sites at least to some of these h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.