SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. versus SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 22-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 11 S.C.R. 476 
A 
SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 14016 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Town Planning - Encroachment - Eviction of occupants -
Rehabilitation I grant of monetary compensation - Internationally 
revered seat. of Shirdi Sai Baba at Shirdi in the State of 
Maharashtra - Appellants, small scale shopkeepers located in the 
vicinity of Shirdi shrine, facing ouster from their shops - Suit filed 
by them had been decreed on compromise in the year 1979, securing 
their right of rehabilitation in the same locality - Decree however 
was construed to be inexecutable by intervening developments -
Fresh rounds of confrontations - Consecutive adjudications 
affirmed the displacement of appellants by acknowledging the 
·mandate of the relevant Town Planning and Municipal Laws and 
the overriding public interest - Held: The emerging situation is one 
where private interest is pitted against public interest - Consequence 
of the appellants being uprooted from their present sites of business, 
would spell an overall dislocation in their lives - That many or all 
of them have buildings elsewhere in the locality, assessed to 
municipal tax, cannot fully neutralize this fallout - Appellants have 
been conducting their business at the present sites for over 45 years 
and over the time, h.aJ'.e built up the same with accompanying goodwill 
and reputation - Nevertlieless for the cause of paramount public 
interest, their eviction is unavoidable - In this premise, the State 
and its functionaries directed to identify a siiitable site to 
accommodate the appellants - However, in case alternative plot/ 
site is notfeasible, the appellants would then be entitled to a 
lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.20 lakhs each/or the bigger 
shops/stalls and Rs.15 lakhs each for the smaller shops/stalls :-
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Bombay 
Highways Act, 1955 - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar 
Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Constitution of 
India - Art. 300A. 
476 
SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. 
SHIRD! NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR. 
Doctrines I Principles - Public trust doctrine -
"res 
communious" - Private interest vis public interest - Held: The notion 
of public interest synonymises colleetive welfare of the people and 
public institutions - Perceptionally health, law and order, peace, 
security and a clean environment are some of the areas of public 
and collective good where private rights.being in conflict therewith 
has to take a back seat- Maxims - "Salus Populi Est._Suprema Lex". 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court -
HELD:l. Both the appellants and the respondents/ . 
defendants have to share the blame of leaving the compromise 
decree unexecuted for over a decade whereafter fresh rounds of 
confrontations surfaced leading to the present situation. Be that 
·as it may, though there has been no determinance of the 
appellants' right, title and interest in the land, except ·that they 
are admittedly in continuous possessiort since the year 1970 and 
carrying on their business there, understandably, over the years, 
they have settled themselves in their plots and are earning their 
livelihood from the income of the business dealings. Though the 
. build up of facts, since the compromise dec_ree cannot lre 
discarded, the contemplated measures .of the responde1,1ts, to 
clear the area of the encroachments in public interest and for its 
overall development, would' result in the displacement of the 
appellants as a compelling necessity. As a corollary, they-.have to 
be essentially rehabilitated or adequately compensated bearing 
· in mind, the impact of the passage of time on the relevant 
perspectives since the date of the compromise decree. [Para 54] 
[502-H; 503-A-C] 
Mis. Laxmi & Co. v. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande & Another 
(1973) 1 SCC 37 : 1973 (2) SCR 172; Dhurandhar 
Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Others 
(2001) 6 SCC 534 : 2001 (3) SCR 1129; Ar1111 Lal and 
Others v. (Jn ion of India and Others (20IOr 14 SCC 
384 : 2010 (13) SCR 1176 - referredllJ; 
· 
2. The-emerging situation is one where private interest is 
pitted against public- interest. The notion of public interest 
synonymises_ collective welfare of the people and public 
institutions and is generally informed with tbe ~ictates of public 
477 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
478 
SUPREM

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