- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Campa Cola Residents Association And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition arises out of a long-running dispute concerning unauthorised construction in the Campa Cola Compound in Mumbai. Notices for demolition had been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“the 1888 Act”).
On 27-2-2013, the Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. MCGM (2013 5 SCC 357) dismissed the residents’ appeals and declared that nothing impeded the Corporation from implementing the demolition notices. A subsequent writ petition (No. 1076 of 2013) challenging the proposed demolition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 29-4-2013, and the Special Leave Petition against that order (Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra) was dismissed on 2-5-2013, though the occupants were granted five months to vacate.
Just before expiry of that five-month period, the petitioners applied to the Corporation for approval of amended building plans under Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the 1966 Act”) read with Section 342 of the 1888 Act. The application was rejected in view of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by order dated 26-9-2013 in WP (Lodg.) No. 2465 of 2013, dismissed the residents’ challenge, terming it an abuse of process. The present Special Leave Petition was filed against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s refusal to compel the Corporation to entertain amended building plans after earlier final orders directing demolition.
- Whether the petitioners could, at this stage, raise a fresh dispute regarding the exact area slated for demolition so as to delay or frustrate implementation of the demolition notices.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Contended that a dispute existed over the precise area proposed to be demolished and sought consideration of amended plans under Section 53(3) of the 1966 Act.
- At the hearing, submitted that 75 % of the members had already vacated and requested an additional four weeks for the remaining occupants to leave, assuring compliance with earlier undertakings.
Respondent (MCGM) Arguments
- The learned Attorney General stated he had no objection to granting limited additional time provided the occupants instituted no further litigation to impede demolition.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. MCGM, (2013) 5 SCC 357 | Confirmed legality of demolition notices; rejected regularisation; directed expeditious action. | Relied on as binding authority that nothing bars implementation of Section 351 notices; used to dismiss the current petition as misconceived. |
| Campa Cola Residents Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 357 (Transferred Case) | Refused regularisation of unauthorised constructions. | Cited to reinforce that prior attempts at regularisation had already been conclusively rejected. |
| Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 14 SCC 565 | Dismissed SLP but granted five months for voluntary vacation upon undertakings. | Referenced to show existing undertakings and to guide the grant of a short additional grace period. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the present writ petition was merely another link in a chain of repetitive litigation aimed at stalling demolition. The petitioners’ new contention concerning the area to be demolished had never been raised in earlier proceedings and therefore could not be entertained now. Allowing such a plea would defeat the purpose of the Court’s final orders in Esha Ekta and subsequent decisions.
Finding the writ petition “clearly misconceived,” the Court affirmed the High Court’s characterisation of the application for amended plans as an abuse of process. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on merits.
On the limited issue of time to vacate, the Court balanced the forthcoming Dussehra and Diwali festivals against the need for expeditious compliance. It accepted the petitioners’ request, noting the Corporation’s lack of objection, but conditioned the extension on a complete prohibition against filing further litigation to obstruct demolition (save actions to recover money from developers).
Holding and Implications
Special Leave Petition Dismissed. However, occupants were granted an extension until 11-11-2013 to vacate the unauthorised premises, subject to undertakings not to initiate further obstructive litigation.
Implications: The demolition of the illegal structures in the Campa Cola Compound is to proceed unhindered after 11-11-2013. The order reiterates the finality of earlier Supreme Court decisions and signals that any further attempts to delay demolition through litigation will not be entertained. No new precedent was set; the Court primarily enforced existing orders.
Order
1. Taken on board. This petition is directed against the order dated 26-9-2013 WP (Lodg.) No. 2465 of 2013 by which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to nullify the decision taken by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “the Corporation”) not to approve the amended plans submitted on behalf of the petitioners and its member cooperative housing societies.
2. By detailed order dated 27-2-2013 (2013) 5 SCC 357, this Court dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 7934-38 of 2012, Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court not to restrain the Corporation from demolishing unauthorised and illegal constructions made on the buildings in Campa Cola Compound. Simultaneously, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 55 of 2012, Campa Cola Residents Assn. v. State of Maharashtra filed for regularisation of the unauthorised and illegal construction was also dismissed (2013) 5 SCC 357. The operative portion of that order reads as under:
“57. In the result, the appeals and the transferred case are dismissed and it is declared that there is no impediment in the implementation of notices issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the 1888 Act and order dated 3-12-2005/8-12-2005 passed by the competent authority. The Corporation is expected to take action in the matter at the earliest.
58. We also direct that the State Government and its functionaries/officers as also the officers/employees of the Corporation shall not put any hurdle or obstacle in the implementation of notices issued under Section 351 of the 1888 Act.
59. It is needless to say that the flat buyers shall be free to avail appropriate remedy against the developers/builders.”
3. After about two months, Rajesh S. Parekh and others filed Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2013 before the High Court for issue of a direction to the Corporation not to demolish the unauthorised and illegal construction on the ground that the action taken by the Corporation was ultra vires the provision contained in Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the 1966 Act”). The same was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 29-4-2013 WP (Lodg.) No. 1076 of 2013. SLP (C) No. 17002 of 2013 filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 2-5-2013 (2014) 14 SCC 565. However, five months' time was granted to the petitioners and other occupants of illegal portions of the buildings to vacate the same. This is evident from the following portions of order dated 2-5-2013 (2014) 14 SCC 565: (Rajesh S. Parekh case (2014) 14 SCC 565)
“9. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the occupants of the illegally constructed flats may not have got sufficient time to vacate the same, we allow five months' time to the petitioners and other occupiers of illegal portions of the buildings to vacate the same. This would be subject to the following conditions:
9.1 Within four weeks from today they shall file affidavits in this Court and give unequivocal undertaking that at the end of five months' period all of them will voluntarily vacate the disputed portions of the buildings and will not cause any hindrance in the action which may be taken by the Corporation in the light of the observations made by this Court in judgment dated 27-2-2013 in Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai (2013) 5 SCC 357.
9.2 During the period of five months, the petitioners and other occupiers shall not induct any other person in the disputed premises. They shall also not file litigation of any kind in the Bombay High Court or the courts subordinate to the High Court for frustrating the action already taken by the Corporation or which may be taken hereinafter.”
4. Just before expiry of five months' period, Rajesh S. Parekh and three others filed IA No. 2 of 2013 in SLP (C) No. 17002 of 2013 for issue of a direction to the Corporation to carry out demolition work as per order dated 4-6-2010 of the State Government. That application was withdrawn on 11-9-2013 IA No. 2 of 2013 in SLP (C) No. 17002 of 2013 with liberty to approach the authorities concerned. Thereafter, application dated 16-9-2013 was submitted to the Executive Engineer of the Corporation for approval of the amended plans under Section 53(3) of the 1966 Act read with Section 342 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the 1888 Act”). The Corporation held that in view of the orders passed by this Court, the prayer made in the application cannot be entertained. Writ Petition No. 2465 of 2013 filed against the decision of the Corporation was dismissed WP (Lodg.) No. 2465 of 2013 by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing that the application filed by the petitioners was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General appearing for the Corporation and carefully perused the record.
6. In our considered view, the writ petition filed by the petitioners, which was one in the chain of cases filed by the petitioners and its members before the trial court, the High Court and this Court, was clearly misconceived and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the same.
7. From the averments contained in the special leave petition and the annexed documents it is clear that the petitioners now want to raise a dispute regarding the total area which is proposed to be demolished. This is clearly impermissible because no such plea was raised at any stage of the earlier proceedings and by creating an artificial dispute the petitioners cannot frustrate implementation of the notices issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the 1888 Act. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. At this stage, Shri Mukul Rohatgi gave out that 75% members of the house building societies have vacated the illegally constructed portions of the buildings and then made a request that the remaining members may be allowed four weeks' further time to vacate the premises in their occupation. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that all the members have already filed undertakings in terms of order dated 2-5-2013 passed in Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 14 SCC 565.
9. Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General submitted that he does not have any objection to the grant of four weeks' further time to the remaining members of the house building societies provided that they do not file any further litigation in any court.
10. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in view the forthcoming Dussehra and Diwali festivals, we deem it proper to accept the prayer made by Shri Rohatgi and allow time to the members of the house building societies up to 11-11-2013 to vacate the premises in their occupation. This would be subject to the condition that they shall not file any litigation in any court in the State of Maharashtra including the Bombay High Court except for recovery of the amount paid to the developers/builders. At the same time, it is clarified that this liberty shall not entitle the petitioners or anyone else to file any case and seek injunction against demolition of the illegally constructed portions of the building.
Alert