IMPORTANT POINT
Private interest must give way to public interest.
If persons occupying sites for decades providing them livelihood are to be displaced in public interest, they should be provided alternative site or duly compensated

Headnote:(a) Property law – Appellant’s possession of suit land since 1970 – Appellants not establishing statutory validity of their constructions – Authorities alleging infringement of Act 1965 and Act 1966 – Statutory violations, if any, have to be addressed by following the due process of law. (Para 31)
       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 36 – Decree becoming non-executable on account of intervening developments – Court should take notice of fact of the decree becoming non-executable. (Para 33, 34)
       (1973) 1 SCC 37; (2001) 6 SCC 534; (2010) 14 SCC 384 – Relied upon
       © Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 – Section 49, 42 – Municipal Council is a planning authority – Responsible for undertaking and making reasonable provisions for removing obstructions and projections in public streets or places and in spaces, not being private property, which are open to the enjoyment of the public, whether such spaces are vested in the Council or in Government – Council not being owner of the land in question – Not relevant. (Para 38, 42)
       (d) Administration of justice – A competent authority issuing notice – Failure to mention proper provision, section 56 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 in instant case – Does not render the notice illegal, unauthorized or non est. (Para 43)
       (e) Town planning – Compromise decree – Not based on any adjudication declaring title of appellants – Land belonging to State Government – Appellants adjudged not to be encroachers or trespassers – No occasion to examine legality or otherwise of their structures vis-à-vis 1965 Act, 1966 Act and Highways Act – Sites occupied by appellants falling within control line of highway – Implementation of development plan imperative in view of increasing confluence of devotees – Notices to espouse public cause not warranting interference. (Para 50, 51)
       (f) Constitution of India – Article 300A and 21 – Right to life versus public interest – Appellants legally occupying, though not owning, business sites since 1970 – Compromise decree not implemented for decades due to inaction by both parties – Displacement of appellants imperative in public interest – Respondents directed to search alternative plots in the vicinity – Failing, appellants directed to be compensated. (Para 62, 63)
       (2011) 9 SCC 1; (1985)3 SCC 545; (2013)1 SCC 353; (1988) 4 SCC 163 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The then Shirdi Gram Panchayat had leased out small parcels of land from the suit land to the appellants on rent for carrying on their trades. The land was taken over by the State on 30.8.1974 and as a consequence, though the appellants were ready and willing to pay the rent, the same was not collected from November, 1974.
       The appellants instituted Regular Civil Suit on behalf of 45 shopkeepers similarly situated seeking a declaration that they were lawful tenants of the parcels in their occupation and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from taking over possession of the same. The suit was eventually decreed on compromise on 20.8.1979. Out of 101 shops, 45 shops in occupation of the appellants were marked in Schedule ‘B’ were to remain thereon. Qua the remaining 56 shops, the Government was to provide alternative accommodation. The rate of rent to be paid by them and the other stipulations pertaining to the continuing lease were also enumerated in the compromise. Resultantly, a decree was passed by the trial court in the same terms on 20.8.1979. The said decree has since remain unchallenged and is thus final and binding on the parties.
       The Sansthan and the appellants both filed execution petitions alleging inaction by opposite party.
       A “Development Plan” of Shirdi was sanctioned which was enforced on and from 25.2.1993.
       In the meantime the shops constructed on the government land were demolished without adjusting the shopkeepers or providing them alternate accommodation as agreed.
       On a remand form the High Court the Executing Court returned a finding that the decree had become inexecutable in the face of the irreversible intervening events.
       The High Court concluded that the decree had become inexecutable. The High Court, however held that the appellants were neither encroachers nor intruders on the land in occupation. It directed to grant compensation to the shopkeepers @ Rs. 3 lakhs each to those having bigger shops like Hotel, sweet-meat shops etc.) and Rs. 2 lakhs each to those of smaller shops i.e. Flower Vendors, Essence Vendors etc. The State as well as the Sansthan were directed to bear the amount of compensation in equal shares to be deposited within a period of six months. In computing the rate of compensation, the High Court also took note of the sizes of the two categories of shops, 16’ x 16’ (big) and 7’ x 11’ (small).
       The High Court reiterated that the appellants were not encroachers on the land in their occupation and that their entry thereupon was legal. It however noted that the decree had become inexecutable.
       It was concluded that the impugned notice had been issued for removal of the structures of the appellants to espouse a public cause. While dismissing the petition, the Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Council was restrained from evicting the appellants for a period of three months.
       Finding of the Court:
       The compromise decree is now not executable.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Amitava Roy, J.

The appellants, ostensibly small scale shopkeepers located in the vicinity of the internationally revered seat of Shirdi Sai Baba at Shirdi Taluq, Rohata, District Ahmadnagar, Maharashtra, face ouster from their sites, being entrapped in the dictates of events since after their suit had been decreed on compromise in the year 1979, securing their right of rehabilitation in the same locality.

2. The contextual facts encompass the issues in all the appeals and permit analogous adjudication.

3. The five appeals impeach the consecutive adjudications in sequential phases affirming the displacement of the appellants by acknowledging the mandate of the relevant Town Planning and Municipal Laws and the overriding public interest as perceived, their decree being construed to have been rendered inexecutable by the intervening developments. Their possession, however remains protected by the interim order of status-quo granted by the High Court and continued in the instant proceedings subject to the liberty granted to the respondent-Shirdi Nagar Panchayat (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Council”) to take any action in accordance with law, in connection with the widening of the concerned road or removal of encroachments, in terms of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed in SLP (C) Nos. 27988 of 2010, 29683-29685 of 2010 and 28235 of 2010.

4. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Council and the learned counsel for the State.

5. The genesis of the eventful factual background is traceable to a one time small village named Shirdi with minuscule population. It rose to fame and eminence in view of the shrine of Sage Sai Baba, viewed as a mortal incarnation of the divine and with time became a pilgrimage centre of worldwide following. Having regard to the increasing number of devotees thronging for offering oblations, small shops grew around the temple, catering to the essentials of the worshippers for their offerings and also their refreshments and conveniences.

6. The plot involved contained in Survey No. 1, Hissa No. 1A 1/1A/2B2 of Shirdi Takula Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar and situated near the Sanctum Sanctorum adjacent to Nagar Manmad Road, prior to 30.8.1974, vested in the then Shirdi Gram Panchayat, which had leased out small parcels of land therefrom to the appellants on rent for carrying on their trades. The land was taken over by the State through the Circle Officer, Rahata on 30.8.1974 and as a consequence, though the appellants were ready and willing to pay the rent, the same was not collected from November, 1974. According to them, though by operation of law, they continued to be the tenants under the State Government and were entitled to retain their possession as before, it transpired with time, as visualised by them, that joint efforts were on, of the official respondents and the respondent-Shri Sai Baba Sansthan, Shirdi (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “Sansthan”) to forcibly evict them from their plot measuring 30 gunthas.

7. Situated thus and being faced with imminent loss of their only means of livelihood, the appellants instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 600 of 1976, in a representative capacity, on behalf of 45 shopkeepers similarly situated, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ahmednagar seeking a declaration that they were lawful tenants of the parcels in their occupation and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from taking over possession of the same, otherwise than in due course of law. The State of Maharashtra (Revenue Department), Tehsildar, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar and Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi, Shirdi, Tal Kopargaon were impleaded as defendants. The averments made in the suit would demonstrate that the appellants then had been possessing premises of sizes ranging from 10’ x 7 ½’ and 12’ x

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 175

IMPORTANT POINTPrivate interest must give way to public interest. If persons occupying sites for decades providing them livelihood are to be displaced in public interest, they should be provided alternative site or duly compensated

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
Private interest must give way to public interest.
If persons occupying sites for decades providing them livelihood are to be displaced in public interest, they should be provided alternative site or duly compensated