MOHAN VITHAL TAKIRE Vs. SATISH SAHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (the detenu) has impugned the detention order dated 19th September 1995, passed by respondent No. 1 detaining him under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (No. L V of 1981 ).

(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention dated 19th September 1995, which were served on the detenu on 20th September 1995. The grounds in brief read thus : the detenu in or about the year 1993, encroached upon a part of an open land (reserved forest land) bearing Survey Nos. 87/a and 239/1 at Mouja Akurli, Gautam Nagar, Poisar, Malad (East), Taluka Borivali, Bombay Suburban District belonging to Sanjay Gandhi Rashtriaya Udyan, Borivali and from the said Government land sold out small plots and/ or huts to needy persons after extracting from them amounts ranging from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/ -. The persons who purchased the said plots erected unauthorized structures/huts at the instance of the detenu. In all about 75 to 80 huts were constructed. Thereafter, the detenu started collecting monthly rents from the occupants of the huts and thus created illegal tenancy. He did not issue any documents or receipts in respect of the plots sold for constructing the huts. The averment is that he and his associates were demanding further monies from the occupants under one pretet or other by threatening to cause them physical harm, by setting fire to their huts etc. On 8-4-1995, two forest officials accompanied by Assistant Police Inspector, Kilje and some police personnel attached to Kandivali (East) Police Station and independent panch witnesses visited the said land bearing Survey Nos. 87/a and 239/1. They found that the detenu had no right or title over the said land. They also discovered that 75 to 80 unauthorized huts had been erected on the said land. The evidence of the range forest officer, Suresh Shivram Darade and of the land surveyor, Laxman Santaram Ghadigaonkar, was that the said land belonged to the Government of Maharashtra and was in the possession of the forest department since 2-9-1975. In the grounds of detention it is also mentioned that on account of fear and terror generated by the detenu and his associates people were not openly prepared to come forward and only on the assurance that their names would be kept a secret gave statements. In the grounds of detention in all there is a reference to six in camera statements viz. of witnesses A to F respectively. Witness A is a resident of Apna Nagar, Kandivali (East ). In his statement dated 20-4-1995, he stated that the detenu started selling huts to needy persons at exorbitant rates and he and his associates had created terror in the area. He further stated that in November 1993, he purchased a 10 feet x 15 feet hut from the detenu for Rs. 7,000/- on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- but the said purchase was not backed up by any legal documents. He also stated that when he demanded agreement and receipts, the detenu initially gave false promises and ultimately in the first week of February 1995, when witness A came to know of the proposed demolition programme, he approached the detenu who abused him in offensive language. Thereafter, the detenue and his associates assaulted him by means of wooden stick and threatened him that in case he asked for agreement and receipts once again he would not be allowed to stay in Gautam Nagar. He further stated that on account of threats of the detenu, he became apprehensive and consequently did not report the matter to the police. Witness B is a resident of Gautam Nagar, Kandivali (East ). In his statement dt. 23-4-1995, he stated that he had purchased an open plot of the size of 10 feet x 20 feet from the detenu for Rs. 7,000/- and thereafter had erected an hut of the dimensions of 10 feet x 10 feet. He further stated that in the last week of February 1995, while he was constructing the hut, the detenu came there and said in a threatening tone that as he was once again constructing a new house he should pay him Rs. 5,000/ -. He then tried to convince the detenu that he had already paid the money. That was of no avail and the detenu pushed and assaulted him and demolished his hut. While leaving he gave threats to his life. Consequently, he did not report the matter to the police. Witness C is a resident of Apna Nagar, Kandivali (East), Bombay. In his statement dt. 26-4-1995, he stated that in 1993, he had purchased an open plot of land 10 feet x 10 feet from the detenu for Rs. 5. 000/- on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. Thereafter, he had constructed a hut thereon by spending his own money. He further stated that the detenu had promised to provide him water and electricity within few days. Some other residents of the locality also contacted the detenu for the same purpose but he gave them evasive replies. In the second week of March 1995, when the detenu and his associates were standing at Gautam Nagar Naka witness C asked the detenu about light and water. At this the detenu abused him and also kicked him mercilessly. Witness, C shouted for help but on account of the fear psychosis created by the detenu none came forward to his rescue. Those who were around ran away. The detenu also gave threats that if any one raised voice he would be cut into pieces. The witness was scared and did not report the matter to police. Witness D is a resident of Rahul Gandhi Chawal, Gatuam Nagar, Kandivali (East ). In his statement dt. 5-5-1995, he stated that in the year 1994, he had purchased a hut of 10 feet x 10 feet from the detenu for Rs. 8000/- on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. The detenu had promised to give him the documents in this regard but did not do so. In the fourth week of March 1995, when witness D came to know of the demolition programme, he immediately contacted the detenu and asked for documents. The detenu got annoyed and started abusing and kicking him. Witness D shouted but because of terror of the detenu none came forward to his rescue. On the contrary the neighbouring hutment dwellers struck by fear closed their huts. The detenu also took out a knife and threatened to kill him in case he opened his mouth. On account of fear of the detenu witness D did not report the matter to the police. Witness E is a resident of Gautam Nagar, Kandivali East. In her statement dt. 10-5-1995, she stated that in the year 1993, she purchased an open plot of 20 feet x 15 feet from the detenu for Rs. 6,000/- and erected a hut thereon out of her own expenses. She started living therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ -. She further stated that the detenu had promised to provide her electricity, water supply and also hand over the documents within a few days. However, when she contacted the detenu for all this, he asked her to increase the rent. She showed her inability to do the same. Thereupon, the detenu gave her threats that in case she did not increase the rent, she should vacate the hut else he would kill her. So saying the detenu kicked her. She shouted for help but none came forward to her rescue. She was scared and did not report the matter to police. Witness F is a resident of Damu Nagar, Kandivali (East ). In her statement dated 4-6-1995, she stated that in the year 1993, she purchased an open plot of land of 1 5 feet x 15 feet from the detenu of Gautam Nagar for Rs. 10,000/ -. She erected a hut thereon out of her own expenses and started living therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. She also stated that the detenu had promised to provide her electricity and water supply within a couple of days. She further stated that when she asked him for documents, he promised that he would supply them shortly. She also stated that the detenu and his associates approached her and asked her to increase the rent to Rs. 100/ -. When she expressed her inability the detenu threatened her that in case she did not pay Rs. 100/ - from next month, her hut would be demolished. In the third week of May 1995, when the detenu and his associates saw her passing, the detenu abused and pushed her. Thereafter, she went to her house. After some time the detenu and his associates came there. They kicked the door of her house and asked her to pay the increased rent then and there else that night itself her hut would be burnt. She got scared and did not report the matter to police.

(3.) ON the basis of the incriminating statements, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the detaining authority, respondent No. 1, was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was a person of violent character, indulging in terrorizing and criminal activities and he and his associates were moving out with deadly weapons like bamboo sticks; knife, chopper and iron rod etc. and did not hesitate to use the same while committing serious and heinous offences. He was also subjectively satisfied that the detenu and his associates had unleashed a reign of terror in the localities of Rahul Gandhi Chawl, Shivaji Chowk in Gautam Nagar, Kandivali (East) and areas adjoining thereto falling in the jurisdiction of Kandivali (East) Police Station, Greater Bombay. He was further satisfied that for fear of retaliation none dared to lodge complaint against them. After recording the said satisfaction, respondent No. 1, finally concluded that the detenu was a slumlord as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981); his activities as a slumlord were causing or calculated to cause harm, danger and alarm and a feeling of insecurity among members of the general public in the areas mentioned above, that his activities as a slumlord were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said areas, that he was likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities in future; and therefore, it was imperative to detain him under the said Act in order to prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner in the future. In the grounds of detention, respondent No. 1 also apprised the detenu of his right to make representation to the various authorities. Their names are mentioned in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the grounds of detention.