The court upheld the legality of notices for cattle seizure, finding the petitioners to be illegal squatters who suppressed material facts, thus dismissing their claims.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Notices dated 22nd October, 2024 and 11th November, 2024. Additionally, they seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith release the seized cattle of Petitioners.

2) The Petitioners are in the business of running stables since the past several decades from the property admeasuring 2860 sq. ft. and 1333 sq. ft. bearing CTS Nos. 1165 of village Versova, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban district. The Petitioner’s have approached the Court being aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.1- Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), who seized the cattle from the Petitioner’s stable on 28^th November 2024 amidst heavy deployment of Police Force with BMC officers of the K/West Ward.

3) Adv. Dhananjay Singh for Petitioners submitted that, the Petitioners and their families have been in occupation of the land and structures prior to 1961. They have been paying Municipal taxes as well as electricity charges payable to the concerned Departments. They also claim to have a Ration Card in their names which prove their existence on this land.

3.1) Mr. Singh submitted that, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the Notices which seek to forcibly evict and relocate their cattle beyond the Mumbai City and Mumbai suburban district within 15 days. He asserts that the Respondent-BMC has failed to consider the report dated 4th March 2021, issued by the Commissioner Dairy Development Maharashtra Government, pursuant to the directions of this Court by its Order dated 30th January, 2020 in various Writ Petitions. He contends that, there were guidelines for relocation of the cattle to the alternate site at Dapchari, District Palghar, which was to be done in a phased manner. He asserts that, there is no infrastructure at Dapchari making it impossible for the Petitioners to relocate. He submits that, there are around 300 cattle sheds, but only a few are being targeted for removal from the City. He accordingly submits that, the notices ought to be quashed and set aside and the Petition be made absolute as prayed.

4) Mr. Godbole representing Respondent No.1-BMC submitted that, as per the directives of the State Government in respect of the resettlement of cattle, a notification dated 1st July, 2006 was issued, whereby the areas of Mumbai and Suburban districts being urban areas were declared as prohibited for keeping and movement of cattle in urban areas. He asserted that as per Section 41A of Maharashtra Keeping and Movement of Cattle in Urban Areas (Control) Act, 1976 a householder was entitled to keep not more than 3 heads of cattle and would be granted a ‘Class A’ license for the same. Therefore, the business activity of the Petitioners is per se illegal. He contended that, the BMC had stopped renewing license to the cattle shed owners since 2006 as per Circular No. HO35334/4R dated 30th November 2006. However, the area of Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon was excluded by a subsequent notification dated 11th August 2009, from the purview of the earlier notification of the State Government. Furthermore, the Supreme Court by its Order dated 16th April, 2021 had held that Order of status quo granted by the High Court was brought to an end and there were no restrictions operating against the State Authorities to take action as per law thus upholding the Order and Judgment of this Court dated 30^th January, 2020.

4.1) Mr. Godbole emphasized that, the Petitioners were not the only ones who were issued Notices. The contention that they were targeted is baseless. He stated that out of 274 stable owners in Mumbai suburbs, 195 were issued notices by the Assistant Commissioners of their respective wards. Mr. Godbole also relied upon a chart showing the actions taken against those stable owners pursuant to the Notices.

4.2) Mr. Godbole submitted that, the animals that were seized were handed over to a