Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned orders in eviction cases involving public interest, ensuring procedural correctness and preventing arbitrary decisions.

JUDGMENT :

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final hearing.

2. This group of petitions challenges the Judgment dated 5th January, 2023 passed by the Appellate Court under Section 81-F of the MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT [for short “the Corporation Act”] preferred against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Nashik Municipal Corporation under Section 81-B of the Corporation Act. Though in some of the Petitions, the date of the show cause notice issued by the Respondent Corporation is different and in some other Petitions there were civil suits filed by the allottees claiming injunction, the individual facts are not required to be taken into consideration. The grounds on which the show cause notices have been issued are identical and identical orders were passed by the Respondent Corporation. Common submissions were advanced and the Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. By consent Writ Petition No. 7079 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2023 were taken up as lead Petitions and referred to during the arguments.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. The Petitioners claim to be allottees and lessees of open plot of land of differing sizes owned by Nashik Municipal Council, now Nashik Municipal Corporation, situated at Survey No. 489 having Final Plot No. 282 and are carrying on business since the year 1973 from the shops constructed thereon. The Petitioners claim to be regularly paying property taxes in respect of the said plots and are also having individual electricity connections and the shop establishment license etc.

5. In the year 1992 as there was an apprehension of demolition of the suit premises at the hands of Nashik Municipal Corporation, some of the Petitioners in these group of Petitions had instituted civil proceedings seeking declaration of occupation and for perpetual injunction and the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The suits came to be restored by the Appellate Court and the order of restoration was challenged before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 30th June, 2016 in view of the pendency of the challenge to the notices which were in the meantime issued by the Corporation.

6. In or about the year 2015, the Respondent-Corporation issued show-cause notices which in some cases were issued on 22nd May, 2015 and in some cases on 2nd June, 2015 to the individual allottees under Section 81-B, 229, 230, 231, 232 and 478 of the Corporation Act directing the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed action of eviction as the subject premises was required for road widening and making available necessary development infrastructure in public interest. The Petitioners submitted their individual explanations to the show-cause notice issued by the Respondent-Corporation inter alia contending that the premises was not situated on the junction or in the way of national highway but is located on service road and there is no proposal for widening of service road.

7. The Respondents fixed the date of hearing and adjournment was sought by the Petitioners and on the adjourned date the Petitioners were absent. Vide order dated 4th December, 2015, the Respondents passed order of eviction for the reason stated in the show cause notice.

8. The order of eviction came to be challenged by the Petitioners under Section 81-F of the Corporation Act before the District Court, Nashik. V