Trig Guards Force Ltd Vs. Maharashtra Indus. Dev. Corpn. & Ors 
Insc 1229 (6 December
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
APPEAL NOs. 984-986 OF 2005 P. Sathasivam, J.
Trig Guards Force Ltd., New Bombay, aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2002
passed in Writ Petition No. 3997 of 2002, Order dated 22.1.2003 passed in
Review Petition No. 98 of 2002 in W.P. No. 3997 of 2002 and Order dated
17.2.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 864 of 2003 by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, has filed the above appeals by way of special leave
Brief facts are as follows:
to the appellant, they constructed commercial structures consisting of nearly
50-60 shops in a slum area known as Turbhe Slum, Turbhe Village facing Thane-Belapur Highway Road.
One of their shops bearing No. 6104 was a single storey building/structure
built in and was in existence long before 1.1.1995 i.e., the notified date
fixed for protected structures under the Maharashtra Slums Clearance &
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act") and as per the
Government Resolution and Notification issued from time to time. The said
building was assessed for Municipal Tax prior to 1.1.1995 and in this regard
the assessment was carried out by the Assessment Department of Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. The said Bill shows that the assessment was levied from
1994-95 and there was electric connection in the said building since long. The
area was constructed under Section 47 of the Slum Act. The provisions of
Municipal Laws and other laws were not applicable in respect of the said
shops/structures and have to be governed as per the provisions of the Slum Act.
The Deputy Engineer, M.I.D.C. Division-II (Respondent No.3 herein) wanted to
evict the appellant from the said shop with ulterior motive and mala fide
intention. Behind the aforesaid shop/shops (on Turbhe Village Thane-Belapur
Highway Road), there is a Hotel Centre Point. The said Hotel had no direct
access on the Highway. Respondent No.3 with a mala fide intention to give
direct access to respondent No.4 from eastern side of the Hotel i.e., directly
on the Highway camouflaged a notice to demolish the structure on non-existing
grounds. The said notice did not fulfil the mandatory requirement of at least
30 days notice as required under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. By the said
notice, respondent No.3 without any enquiry as to whether there was existence
of ground under Section 52(1) of MRTP Act, directed the appellant to demolish
the structure/shop. When the appellant challenged the action of the official
respondent on the basis of the lay out plan (which was not shown to them),
their writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. Review Petition filed by
the appellant was also dismissed on the same grounds. Meanwhile, on the
application of the 4th respondent-Hotel Centre Point, an order was passed by
the official respondent providing way to the main Highway after demolishing the
shop/shops. Again the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ
petition namely, W.P. No. 864 of 2003. By order dated 17.2.2003, the Division
Bench of the High Court placing reliance on its earlier order dated 1.8.2002
passed in W.P. No. 3997 of 2002, order dated 22.1.2003 passed in Review
Petition No. 98 of 2002 and finding no merit, dismissed the said writ petition,
hence, the present appeals before this Court.
Heard Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and
Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for MIDC.
Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel, for the appellant made the following
The MIDC had no basis to demolish the premises of the appellant.
Due process requirements under the statues were not followed by the official
There was no application of mind by the MIDC in so far as:
appellant was the lawful owner of the premises;
premises were in a sanctioned layout scheme;
area was a protected slum area;
There was no effective hearing granted to the appellant prior to the demolition
which violates the principles of natural justice.
The appellant was denied information which formed the basis of the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting legal sanction to the
authorities to demolish the premises without an effective hearing, without due
notice and without supplying any information to the appellant.
The action of the authority favouring 4th respondent- Hotel Centre Point is mala
Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, appearing for MIDC refuted all the above
contentions. According to him, if it is a Slum Area, there must be a specific
notification, in the absence of such notification, the claim of the appellant
that their premises lie in Slum Area cannot be accepted. He denied the
allegation that action was taken at the behest of 4th respondent-Hotel Centre
Point. He finally contended that the statutory scheme provides appeal and
revision, without exhausting the same, writ petitions before the High Court are
considered the relevant materials and rival contentions of the learned senior
counsel appearing on either side. We also perused the orders of the High Court
dated 1.8.2002 in Writ Petition No. 3997 of 2002, dated 22.1.2003 in Review
Petition No. 98 of 2002 as well as order dated 17.2.2003 in Writ Petition No.
864 of 2003. In the first order, the Division Bench of the High Court, after
holding that since the appellant had encroached upon the road and constructed a
ground, two storeyed structure which is wholly unauthorized, confirmed the
notice issued for demolition and dismissed the first writ petition. While
considering the review petition, the Division Bench after perusing the plans
provided by MIDC and finding that the appellants have raised unauthorized
construction on the area demarcated for road dismissed the same. When the
appellants filed another writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 864 of 2003,
the Division Bench, after noting that earlier orders were passed based on the
plans produced by the MIDC and of the fact that the appellant had raised
unauthorized construction on the area demarcated for road, dismissed the said
writ petition. Though Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the appellants took us through various provisions of the MRTP Act and contended
that the official respondents were not justified in demolishing their
structure, we are not inclined to go into those aspects in the light of the
order to be passed hereunder.
Inasmuch as the main grievance of the appellant was with regard to the orders
passed by the High Court based on the plans produced by MIDC and the appellant
was not aware of those materials which were relied on by the High Court, we
inclined to remand the matter to the High Court. Since the issue relates to
demolition of structures and in the light of assertion of the appellant, we are
of the view that ends of justice would be met by fresh disposal after affording
opportunity to all the parties. It is made clear that we are not expressing
anything on the stand taken by the appellant as well as by the respondents
including MIDC. In view of the same, we set aside the order dated 17.2.2003
passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 864 of 2003 and restore the said writ
petition on its file. The High Court is requested to dispose of the same afresh
after affording opportunity to all the parties.
are at liberty to place their respective claim by way of an affidavit/counter
affidavit supported by documents within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment and thereafter it is for the Division
Bench of the High Court to decide the writ petition on merits as early as
Civil Appeals are disposed of on the above terms. No costs.