SNEHAKANT CHANDRAKANT SHROFF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that the action on the part of the respondents in not releasing and thereafter restoring the possession of Flat Nos.11 and 12 on the 3rd floor of the building named 'Amar Bhavan', A.R. Rangekar Marg, Opera House, Mumbai 400 007 that belong to the petitioners is unlawful, illegal and in violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights. The petitioners accordingly pray that the respondents be directed to forthwith vacate and handover peaceful possession of the aforesaid premises to them.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners, as pleaded in the writ petition, that in or about the year 1940, the aforesaid two flats were permitted to be temporarily occupied by the Police Department at their request so as to meet the requirement of housing police officers to enable maintenance of the law and order situation. The petitioners have pleaded that there was no written contract executed between their predecessor and the Police Department. Certain amounts were paid by the Police Department to the predecessor on monthly basis and till about 31 st December 2007, Rs.611.00 per month was being paid. On 10 th September 1997, the predecessor of the petitioners, through his Advocate had issued a communication to the respondents raising a grievance with regard to non-payment of the monthly amount. According to the petitioners, since they were in need of the aforesaid premises, a request was made to the respondents to return possession of the same. Since the same was not done, this writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) Dr. Sujay Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayers made in the writ petition referred to the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.1108 of 2005, 343 of 2005 and 344 of 2005 to contend that in the aforesaid writ petitions, the possession of the respective premises were handed over by the respondents to the concerned petitioners. Though this writ petition was to be heard along with the aforesaid writ petitions, it could not be heard when the said writ petitions were decided. He submits that on similar terms, a direction be issued to the respondents to handover possession of the aforesaid two flats. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was contended that the occupation of the respondents since the year 1940 was on the backdrop that the two flats had been requisitioned by the respondents for temporary use of the Police Department. Though there was no written order requisitioning these two flats, it was undisputed that possession of the same was handed over to facilitate convenience of the Police Department since it intended to house it's police officers. Inviting attention to the information supplied to the petitioners under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act of 2005") pursuant to the application dtd. 25/6/2007, it was pointed out that copy of written Lease Deed was not available even with the respondents. Further information supplied in October, 2020 indicated that the respondents had no record to indicate the period when the monthly payment towards occupying these flats was paid. Since the petitioners were now in need of the said two flats, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to handover possession of the same. As regards applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948 (for short, "Act of 1948"), as urged by the respondents is concerned, it was submitted that since the two flats were orally requisitioned in the year 1940, the provisions of the said Act would not apply retrospectively. To substantiate this contention as regards the entitlement to receive back possession, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in H.D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 337; Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 192; Roy Estate Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2009) 12 SCC 194, as well as the judgment of this Court in Geeta Mangesh Laud and Ors. Vs. Appellate Authority and the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department and Ors., with connected writ petitions, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1004 . This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court unsuccessfully. It was thus urged that since possession of the said flats had been handed over in the year 1940 on account of the need of the Police Department then and about 84 years had elapsed since handing over of such possession, the petitioners were entitled to receive back possession of the same.