Kamal Khata, J.

[1] Our Court is increasingly inundated with cases where occupants of illegal structures seek to dictate terms, thereby depriving law-abiding citizens and taxpayers of their right to an orderly and lawful state.

[2] This Petition exposes how the overburdened Courts and their leniency towards Authorities is systematically exploited and manipulated by slumlords, in collusion with the Municipal Corporators in charge of governance, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Police.

[3] What initially appeared to be a straightforward plea, by five purportedly eligible slum dwellers, Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No.29125 of 2024, ("the Slum Dwellers Petition") filed on 26th September 2024, to prevent their displacement by the BMC, has been revealed as an attempt by squatters and land grabbers to prolong their unlawful occupation on the set back area of the Everard Society and a proposed DP road for over 24 years. These five Petitioners are among fifty-two others who have illegally constructed and occupied structures on the road adjacent to the southern wall of Everard Society, which had filed a Petition seeking their removal.

[4] The Slum Dwellers Petition was tagged along with the contempt Petition on the plea that resolving the Petition would eliminate the basis for contempt proceedings.

[5] However, Ms. Doshi for the Petitioners Everard Society argued that the Contempt Petition if heard first would decide whether the slum dwellers deserve any relief. Ms. Doshi submitted that, they had filed a Contempt Petition concerning an Order dated 29th March 2000 in their Petition No. 1484 of 2000 which directed maintenance of status quo with regard to construction of toilet. This Order, finds mention in paragraph No.5 of the Order dated 18th June 2015 which outlines the pertinent facts and directions, forms the foundation for the matters currently before this Court.

[6] For ready reference, of the facts and direction of the entire Order dated 18th June 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:

". Called out for hearing. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel representing the first Respondent. The Additional Government Pleader appears for the 3rd Respondent. None appears for the second Respondent.

2. The grievance made by the Petitioner, which is a registered Cooperative Housing Society, by filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as regards to the construction of illegal hutments on 60 feet wide road abutting the compound wall of the Petitioner on the southern side. The second grievance is regarding construction of a toilet block on the said road abutting the compound wall of the Petitioner.

3. In paragraph 1 of the Petition, the Petitioner has averred that at the time of construction of the first phase of the Society buildings, the Petitioner was required to surrender an area having width of 30 feet along with its compound wall facing southern side of its property for construction of a 60 feet wide proposed Development Plan Road. The contention raised in Paragraph 3 of the Petition is that after surrender of the said area, the Authorities of the first Respondent insisted that the Petitioner Society should do the work of asphalting of 30 feet wide strip forming part of 60 feet wide Development Plan Road. Reliance is placed on the sanctioned Development Plan dated 19th May 1968 as well as the letter dated 16th October 1986 issued by the first Respondent Municipal Corporation. Reliance is also placed on the Condition No.4 in the said letter dated 16th October 1986 which reads thus:

"4. You are requested to submit the final completion certificate from Executive Engineer (Road Construction) Eastern Suburbs, Executive Engineer Storm Water Drains (Eastern Suburbs) and Executive Engineer (Terms and Conditions) for carrying out the work of roads, storm water drains and street lights as per Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay's specification for 30' wide D.P. Road as well as for 22" wide internal access road"

4. In paragraph 6 of the Petition, there is a specific averment that on the 60 feet wide road constructed abutting the compound wall of the Petitioner-society, the illegal hutments have come up about which a protest was lodged by the Petitioner. In Paragraph 7 of the Petition, a specific case is made out that on 19th March 2000, an illegal structure was sought to be constructed on the said road near a place of worship forming a part of the property of the Petitioner society. Construction was sought to be made on a space where there is an underground water tank of the Petitioner society. Therefore, a protest was made on 19th March 2000 and 21st March 2000. Reliance is also place on the letters dated 22nd March 2000 and 24th March 2000.

5. In Paragraph 9 of the Petition, it is alleged that the Police Officer in-charge of the concerned Police Station informed the office bearers of the Petitioner society that, the construction of a toilet abutting the compound wall of the Petitioner is being undertaken at the behest of the second Respondent who was at the relevant time elected Councilor of the first Respondent Municipal Corporation. It is stated that the cost of Rs.77,300/- for construction of the said toilet was approved. It is alleged that a work order for the construction of a toilet block was issued. In paragraph 10 of the Petition, it is stated that a big hole was made outside the compound wall and a floor of the illegal toilet was constructed. On 29th March 2000, the learned Single Judge while issuing notice in this Petition, directed the Respondents to maintain status quo as regards the construction of toilet in question.

6. There is a reply filed by Shri S.B. Arjitwar, the Assistant Engineer(on behalf of the first Respondent). In Paragraph 5 of the reply, it is contended that the second Respondent proposed to the ward officer of the concerned ward to construct two seated WC blocks for the benefit of the hutment dwellers occupying the huts on the edge of the Development Plan Road near the compound wall of the Petitioner society. The proposal was to construct toilet blocks by utilizing the "unforeseen grant fund" allotted to the second Respondent. It is stated that after due approval, it was decided to demolish two huts and construct WC blocks in the place of the said two huts in the larger public interests. In Paragraph 13 of the reply, it is contended that the hutments where WC blocks are being provided are protected under the policy of the State Government. There is a further affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Petitioner Society on 24th April 2000 reiterating that all the hutments have been illegally constructed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the averments made in the Petition and the stand taken in the reply. Her submission is that there is nothing placed on record by the first Respondent to show that any policy of the State Government protects the illegal hutments. She pointed out that in view of the order of the status quo, further construction of toilet blocks was not carried out. Her submission is that it is not in dispute that the structures are illegal and have been unauthorisedly constructed and, therefore, it is the obligation of the Municipal Corporation to take action of demolition in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation states on instructions that the toilet blocks are not in existence. However, illegal hutments are in existence. His contention is that the hutments are not on the Development Plan Road.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions. Some controversy is sought to be raised as to whether the hutments are actually on the 60 feet wide a Development Plan Road or by the side of the said Development Plan Road.

9. It will be necessary to make a reference to the specific averments made in Paragraph 6 of the Petition in which the Petitioner has stated that the illegal hutments have come up on the said 60 feet wide road along the compound wall of the Petitioner society. It is admitted in Paragraph 8 of the reply of the First Respondent Municipal Corporation that the hutments are situated near the compound wall of the Petitioner society. It is, however, contended that the hutments are in existence for a long time. Thus, there is no specific denial of the fact that the hutments have come up along the compound wall of the Petitioner society. Only other contention raised as regards the illegal hutments is that the same are protected under the policy of the Government of Maharashtra. It is not the case of the State Government that the land on which the hutments have been erected is a slum area within the meaning of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. No particulars of the alleged policy of the State Government which allegedly protects the said illegal hutments are placed on record. As far as the construction of toilet blocks is concerned, the stand taken is that on humanitarian grounds, for the benefit of the hutment dwellers, the same are to be constructed by spending funds out of the funds made available to the second Respondent, who was an elected Councilor of the Municipal Corporation at the relevant time. Thus, it follows that even according to the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation, the hutments are illegal. For construction of toilet blocks, there may be an approval from a particular Municipal Officer, but it is the specific case that the toilet blocks are constructed for the benefit of the hutment dwellers who are residing in illegal structures.

10. It is the legal obligation of the first Respondent Municipal Corporation to take action against the illegal hutments irrespective of the fact whether the hutments are a part of the proposed Development Plan Road or not. If action of demolition is to be taken in respect of the illegal hutments, it follows that the demolition of the toilet blocks, if in existence, will have to be made.

11. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:-

ORDER :

(a) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c);

(b) We grant time of six months to the first Respondent Municipal Corporation till 31 st January 2016 to complete the demolition of illegal hutments as well as the toilet blocks if the same are in existence;

(c) We make it clear that the work of demolition shall be carried out only after following due process of law;

(d) After the work of demolition, all consequential actions of restoring the status quo ante shall be taken by the first Respondent Municipal Corporation;

(e) The Rule is made absolute on above terms;

(f) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order."

[7] The prayers in the Writ Petition No. 1484 of 2000 that were granted in the order read as follows:

"(a) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the same nature, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and proceedings from the Respondents and after going into the legality and propriety of the same, be pleased to direct the Respondents to demolish the illegal hutments on the 60 ft. wide road abutting the compound wall on the south side of the Petitioner society;

(b) to take writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the same nature, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and proceedings from the Respondents and after going into the legality and propriety of the same, be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith stop any toilet block or any other structure of any nature whatsoever coming upon the said 60 ft. wide road abutting the compound wall on the south side of the Petitioner society;

(c) to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the same nature, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and proceedings from the Respondents and after going into the legality and propriety of the same, he pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith demolish the partly constructed floor of the toilet block and also to remove the septic tank and all other structures carried out on the 60 ft. wide road abutting the compound wall on the south side of the Petitioner society."

(Emphasis added)

[8] Pursuant to the Order, the Respondents were granted six months, until 31st January 2016 to complete the demolition of the illegal hutments and toilet blocks. However, no action was taken by the Corporation. Consequently, the Petitioner therefore addressed two communications on 10th March 2016, two months after the deadline and a reminder on 9th April 2016, urging the authorities to demolish the structures and comply with the Court's directions.

[9] On 6th May 2016, an application was made under Right to Information Act 2005, seeking details of steps taken to comply with the Court's Order. After waiting patiently for 11 months beyond the deadline of 31st January 2016, the Petitioners had no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings before the Court.

[10] On 1st August 2017, this Court noted in its Order that, the Affidavit filed by the Corporation disclosed non-compliance with the Court's directives. It was further recorded that the BMC sought extension of 12 months to carry out the demolition due to the upcoming Municipal Elections. The Court categorically observed that there was willful and deliberate breach of its Judgment and Order dated 18th June 2015. Consequently, a Notice under Rule 9(1) of Contempt of Court (Bombay High Court Rules, 1994) was issued to Shri Ajit Kumar Ambi, Assistant Commissioner, L Ward, returnable on 1st September 2017. Subsequently, on 13th August 2024 while dealing with the Notice of Motion No. 575 or 2017, the Court recorded that the Applicants (slum dwellers) sought intervention in the Contempt Petition, requesting interim relief to restrain the implementation of the judgment dated 18th June 2015. The motion was rejected.

[11] The Court observed that the unconditional apology tendered, and reasons offered for non-compliance of its Orders before 31st January 2016 were not genuine. Although an Affidavit had been filed on 4th February 2017, the BMC had failed to comply with the Court's directives even as of until 14th August 2024. In these circumstances, the Court directed that the case papers be placed before the Municipal Commissioner, who was required to file an affidavit by 27th August 2024. The Commissioner was also directed to explain on affidavit the reasons for non-compliance with the Court's Orders within the prescribed timeline.

[12] On 2nd September 2024, senior counsel Mr. Singh for the BMC, assured the Court that the Order dated 18th June 2015 would be fully complied with by 7th October 2024 and that a compliance report would be submitted by 11th October 2024.

12.1) Mr. Singh further stated that an Affidavit filed by the Commissioner confirmed that 24 hours' eviction notices had already been served on the illegal occupants. However, due to the ongoing monsoon season, evictions were deferred until 30th September 2024. He assured the Court that all evictions would be completed by 7th October 2024. Accepting these assurances, the Court listed the matter for hearing on 15th October 2024.

[13] Meanwhile, on 26th September 2024, the Petitioners (Shivpujan Parasnath Rajak and four others) filed Writ Petition (L) 29625/24, primarily seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to restrain the Respondents from demolishing their structures until the BMC selected a viable rehabilitation site in consultation with the Petitioner's into confidence.

[14] The record reveals that the BMC once again failed to file its compliance Affidavit by 11th October 2024 and sought additional time on 14th November 2024, 29th November 2024 and on 4th December 2024 through the senior counsel Mr. Singh, when matter was listed. As the Affidavit of one Dhanaji Herlekar, Assistant Commissioner, 'L' Ward dated 17th December 2024 was served on the Petitioner (Everard Society) on 17th December 2024, the matter was adjourned to 19th December 2024 with a view to grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to respond.

[15] Ms. Singh appearing for the Petitioners in the Slum Dwellers Petition argued that the Petitioners are eligible slum dwellers and should not be evicted unless the BMC provides an alternate relocation site other than Anik Gaon. She emphasized that Anik Gaon, being in close proximity to Mahul, is unsuitable due to poor air quality, as highlighted in Orders from the Supreme Court, High Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

[16] In response, Mr. Singh for the BMC submitted that, no alternate premises were currently available apart from Anik Gaon. He further stated that following this Court's Order on 28th September 2024, BMC representatives inspected building No.9 L.U. Gadkari Marg, Anik Gaon, Mumbai. The inspection revealed that out of 120 flats, around twenty-three flats were occupied by Project Affected Persons ("PAP") and the building was in good and habitable condition. He clarified that Anik Gaon is not a part of Mahul but is located approximately four kilometers away from Mahul. He further contended that several individuals reside in the building and surrounding area, and no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners if were temporarily relocated to Anik Gaon until a suitable alternative site could be identified. Thus, Mr. Singh submitted that the BMC had made every effort to comply with the Court's Orders.

[17] Ms Doshi for Everard Society summarized the case to submit that, the Society's land was acquired by the BMC for a 60-meter-wide road. Upon surrender, illegal structures are erected by slumlords alongside the compound wall. The Society complained both orally as well as in writing to both the BMC and the Police whose fundamental duty is to prevent these in the first instance but failed to take action of removing these illegal structures. Instead, these structures got both water and electricity, blatantly constructed an additional floor and exploit these structures for commercial gains thanks to the laws that empathize with these squatters and landgrabbers who claim to be poor slumdwellers. Ms Doshi submitted that illegalities thrive as these squatters and landgrabbers need no permission from any authorities, while law abiders are expected to follow all laws strictly and would not get an 'Occupancy Certificate' if they fail to comply with any of the BMC's strict conditions. The Society filed a Petition since the Municipal Corporator (for wooing their vote bank) started constructing a 'Public toilet' (with a sewerage tank below) in March 2000 on the wall abutting the grotto, where the Society's members prayed. Thus, she submitted that public funds were used for the benefit of the illegal structures. Aggrieved with this action, the Everard Society filed Petition in 2000. Fifteen years later, on 18th June 2015 the Court passed a detailed Order declaring that, all these structures are illegal and granted BMC 6 months' time upto 31st January 2016 to demolish them. Ms Doshi contended that the BMC simply ignored the Orders for reasons best known to them, therefore a contempt petition was filed on 10th January 2017. In the above circumstances since the slum dwellers had suppressed material facts their Petition deserves to be dismissed with costs and consequently after demolishing all structures abutting the wall including the sewerage tank, the BMC should restore status quo ante as directed by the Court.

Reasons and Conclusions:

[18] Heard all the counsel for respective parties.

[19] Considering the protracted history of this case and findings of this Court in its Order dated 18th June 2015, particularly in paragraph 9 reproduced herein above, we are unable to accept the contentions of Ms. Gayatri Singh that, the dwellers were eligible slum dwellers.

[20] The Court in its Order dated 18th June 2015 had observed that all these structures were illegal. Therefore, Ms. Singh's assertion that the slum dwellers were eligible is unfounded, as the said structures were not declared slum area on the date of the order. Consequently, the BMC could not have declared them 'eligible slum dwellers' subsequently. We are unable to understand how these 'illegal occupiers' were held 'eligible slum dwellers' once the Court declared them as illegal. Furthermore, the slum dwellers have failed to annex or reference any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of eligibility.

[21] The Petitioners, Shivpujan Rajak & Ors. present a classic case of suppression and misrepresentation of material facts. The Petition does not disclose how the Petitioners came into possession of the structures or obtained water and electricity supplies since 1985. They rely on purported rent receipts paid to the Collector for their illegal structures since 1985. However, a close examination of the purported rent receipts annexed as Exhibit 'A' 'B' & 'C' reveals that these are receipts of some payments made to the Authorities. These receipts do not pertain to either the structure or the land beneath them. The Petitioners also claim that the BMC declared them eligible through notices. However, they have failed to annex any documents to substantiate their claim. It is well established in law that payment of taxes to an authority does not confer any rights over the landed property. Besides these structures, being situated on the set back area of the Everard Society and proposed DP Road were declared illegal by the Court's order dated 18th June 2015. The BMC had also issued notices under section 314 of the BMC Act on 22nd December 2015 though no further action was taken.

[22] In view of the above, the Slum Dwellers Petition deserves to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and documents. We take support from the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the following cases:

1) Hari Narain Vs. Badri Das, 1963 AIR(SC) 1558.

2) G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs. Govt. of Karnataka, 1991 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726.

3) Welcome Hotel Vs. State of A.P., 1983 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015.

4) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, 1994 1 SCC 1 : JT (1993) 6 SC 331.

5) Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. SBI, 2007 8 SCC 449.

6) A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of A.P., 2007 4 SCC 221 : AIR 2007 SC 1546.

7) Sunil Poddar Vs. Union Bank of India, 2008 2 SCC 326.

8) K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL, 2008 12 SCC 481.

9) G. Jayashree Vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel, 2009 3 SCC 141.

[23] Subsequently, this Court by its order dated 1st August 2017 issued notice under Rule 9(1) of Contempt of Court (Bombay High Court) Rules 1994 to Shri Ajit Kumar Ambi, Assistant Commissioner, L Ward and postponed the issuance of contempt notices to other officers to the next date. The order also directed him to file a reply to the Notice of Motion (L) No. 482 of 2017 before 18th August 2017 while fixing the hearing on 18th August 2017.

[24] The Asst Commissioner Mr. Ambi filed an Affidavit dated 11th August 2017. A perusal of the same would reveal that the unconditional apology tendered to this Court was merely on paper. He reiterated the contents of the Affidavit dated 4th February 2017 to support his contention regarding the delay in implementation of the orders. Essentially, all concerned were ascertaining if the occupiers were entitled to alternative accommodation. Furthermore, the affidavit explained that on account of the elections upto May 2017 and thereafter on account of monsoons he sought an additional time of three months to comply with the order.

[25] The record indicates that an Affidavit dated 25th September 2017 was filed by the Secretary of the Everard Society. It reveals that not only the 38 illegal hutments were not demolished but the photographs annexed to the Notice of Motion also evinced that the toilet blocks were constructed after the Order dated 18th June 2015 and were in use. New storm water drains connecting the old storm water drains were constructed. This led to untreated sewage within the Society during the heavy rains on 29th August 2017. There is no rebuttal to this statement made on Affidavit.

[26] The record further indicates that Respondent Corporation sought time on 1st September 2017 when the matter reached and was granted. Thereafter, there was an Order dated 10th December 2018 adjourning the matter to 21st January 2019 to be heard along with WP(L) No. 3980 of 2018. No compliance Affidavit was filed by Mr. Ambi during this period. No extension of time was sought by Mr Ambi for compliance with Court Orders. In our view therefore, there is willful and deliberate breach of the directions contained in the judgment and Order dated 18th June 2015. Mr. Ambi is guilty of disobedience of the Order of this Court. Disobedience strikes at a very root of the "rule of law" which is the foundation of a democratic Society and the judiciary is the institution through which the "rule of law" is achieved. Disobedience shakes this very foundation, and it erodes the faith and confidence reposed by the people in the judiciary. Thus, in our view by disobeying the Orders of this Court, Mr. Ambi has committed contempt of Court and is liable to be punished for it under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

[27] The matter was then taken up on 13 August 2024. Addressing the contempt and the Officer's reply, the Court noted that despite an apology, the BMC failed to comply with the Order for 7 (seven) years. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner to file a detailed reply and ensure compliance, but that Affidavit filed on 27th August 2024, provided an unsatisfactory explanation for non-compliance.

[28] A careful perusal of the Affidavit indicates that the Municipal Commissioner has offered no explanation as to why the Orders dated 18th June 2015 and 1st August 2017 were not pointed out to this Court either on 26th November 2018 when a status quo order was passed by this Court or even thereafter. While the Municipal Commissioner seeks to explain procedures taken regarding the so-called eligible occupants, there is no mention as to why no steps were taken against the illegal occupants. We find this Affidavit misleading. Although, this borders on contempt we leave it at that. We expect the Municipal Commissioner, the head of the BMC, to be more cautious and responsible. We reproduce Paragraph 4 and unnumbered paragraphs of the Affidavit of Shri Bhushan Gagrani to make our point for ready reference:

"4. After the order dated 18.06.2015, in compliance thereto, the following actions and steps have been taken by the Respondents:-

(a) On 09.03.2017 Final Annexure-II was prepared by 'L' Ward the in respect of 52 hutment and dwellers and same was sent for cross checking to Test Audit and Vigilance Officer (TAVO) & Enquiry Department of BMC for scrutiny and verification. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of verification of the Final Annexure - II dated 21-03- 2017. Scrutiny report was received from the Enquiry Officer. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is a copy of the Scrutiny report. On 26-05-2017 scrutiny report was received from Test Audit and Vigilance Officer (TAVO) stating that certain documents were not received and there were queries in respect of some documents. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit C is a copy of the Scrutiny report dated 26.05.2017. On 11-08-2017 an affidavit was filed by the Asst. Commissioner 'L' ward Shri. Ajit Kumar Ambi and further time of 3 months was prayed from this Hon'ble Court for compliance of the order dated 18.06.2015. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D is a copy of the Affidavit filed by the Asst. Commissioner 'L' ward Shri, Ajit Kumar Ambi by letter dated 19.09.2017 the (TAVO) informed the Asst. Commissioner L Ward that the Scrutiny inspection cannot done due to absence of staff of Enquiry Department. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit E is a copy of the letter dated 19.09.2017.

(b) Scrutiny report of test Audit and Vigilance Officer (TAVO) & Enquiry Department stated that for deciding eligibility of the illegal hutment dwellers as per Annexure-II, permission of the competent authority is essential. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit F is a copy of Scrutiny report of TAVO dated 05.10.2017. Accordingly, meeting was conducted under chairmanship of Asstt. Commissioner 'L' ward along with Test Audit and Vigilance Officer (TAVO) and Enquiry Department staff on 08.06.2018. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit G is a copy of minutes of meeting conducted on 08/06/2018.

(c) Thereafter, on 26.06.2018 after scrutiny of Test Audit and Vigilance Officer (TAVO), and Enquiry Department revised Final annexure-II, prepared by this office, the same was submitted for sanction to DMC (Z-V) / AMC (ES), Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit H is a copy of revised Final Annexure-II dated 26.06.2018. Out of 52 slum dwellers, 10 slum dwellers were declared as eligible as per Annexure-II, 4 slum dwellers were declared as un-decided due to failure to supply certain documents and the rest 38 illegal dwellers were declared as non-eligible. Furthermore on 10.07.2018 approval of AMC (ES) was received in this office on 19.07.2018. (as mentioned in Exhibit H). dtd. 06.08.2018). Then the File was forwarded to Asst. Commissioner, Estate Department for finding out availability of Eligible Residential PAP. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit I is a copy of letter forwarded to the Asst. Commissioner, Estate department.

(d) On 5.10.2018 Estate department forwarded file to DMC (Imp.) for approval of the Residential PAPs to which approval was sought on 19.10.2018. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit J is a copy of the letter by which approval was sought. I say that on 30-10-2018, sanction was received from Asstt. Commissioner (Estate) regarding approval of allotment of PAPs 10 eligible dwellers of PAP and alternative accommodation was provided at M/West ward at Eversmile layout, Bldg. No 03, Flat no. 714 to 723, Mahul. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit K is a copy of the alternative accommodation provided at M/West ward at Eversmile layout, Bldg. No. 03, Flat no. 714 to 723, Mahul. On 16.11.2018 Letters were issued to all 10 eligible residential structure holders on 16.11.2018 and they were directed to attend the lottery on 27.11.2018 at 11.00 am in 'L' ward office. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit L is a copy of the letter dated 16.11.2018. On 24.11.2018 Final Order was issued to all 38 non eligible structure holders and they were directed to remove their structures within 48 hrs after receipt of this order. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit M is a copy of the Final order dated 24.11.2018.

(e) By order dated 26.11.2018 structure holders at serial no. 41 Mr. Ramai Mani Kuppuswami & Ors approached this Hon'ble Court by W.P. (L.) no 3980 of 2018. In said matter Hon'ble High Court passed the order and directed to maintain the Status-quo till 10.12.2018. I say that the Writ Petition (L.) no 3980 of 2018 is tagged along with this Writ Petition and I am informed that it has up for hearing now. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit N is a copy of the order dated 26.11.2018. The lottery process was held on 27.11.2018 wherein no one was present out of 10 eligible residential structure holders. Moreover, again on 27.11.2018 1) Paltu Sharma 2) Shivkumar Vaish 3) Shiv Poojan Rajak and ors approached the Hon'ble Court by W.P. (L.) no 3967 of 2018, W.P. (L.) no 3978 of 2018 & W.P. (L.) no 3971 of 2018 respectively. In the said matters this Hon'ble Court passed order dated 27.11.2018 granting ad-interim reliefs to the above Petitioners who were dissatisfied with the allotment at Mahul, and the Corporation were given liberty to accommodate the Petitioners at any other place except Mahul. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit O is a copy of the order dated 27.11.2018.

Thereafter, proposal was put up to Asstt. Commissioner (Estate) vide letter dt 21.12.2018 requesting him to allot new Residential PAP at location other than Mahul. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit P is a copy of the letter dt 21.12.2018. Thereafter, on 14.01.2019 Asstt Commissioner (Estate) submitted the new Residential PAP proposal stating that, as per revised policy of Estate department dtd. 09.10.2018 there were no proper directions and guidelines regarding creating online project in SAP system as earlier, the allotment procedure was done offline, to which guidelines were issued for creation of online project in SAP system.

(f) On 20.03.2020 1st Lockdown was declared by Govt of India for COVID -19. I say that on 28.12.2021 As per guidelines creating project on SAP system, it is necessary to upload Aadhar details, Mobile No.s and E-mail Id in SAP system. For the said purpose letter was issued to eligible structure holder Mr Bittu Sharma at serial No. 40 on 28.12.2021 and on 07.01.2022. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit Q is a copy of the letter dated dt 28.12.2021 and on 07.01.2022.

(g) On 14.02.2022 after receipt of all the necessary documents from all the 10 eligible structure holders, project was created in SAP system and same was forwarded to DMC (Z-V) for approval. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the same as and when produced. Moreover, on 07.11.2022 after rectifying the queries raised by DMC (Z-V), again proposal was sent for approval of DMC (Z-V) on 07.11.2022 and same was approved by DMC (Z-V) on 25.11.2022. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R is a copy of the DC approval. In the month of September 2023 meeting was conducted by this office staff alongwith all eligible structure holders. During said meeting list of available PAPs with Corporation was handed over to eligible structure holders.

However, structure holders refused to accept the revised PAP. Thereafter, on 17.08.2024 the Mr. R V Kargutkar, Junior Engineer, officer of respondents personally visited all the eligible structure holders and called them to attend 'L' Ward office alongwith their identification documents on 19.08.2024 for accepting the allotment letters. On 19.08.2024, 07 out of 10 eligible structure holders were present, but they refused to accept the offered allotment at Bldg. no. 09, CTS no. 393(pt), 393(pt) 39, 395/A, 395/Ai, Anik Gaon, L. U. Gadkari Marg, Mumbai 400074. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit S is a copy of the report prepared by the A.E. (Maint) Department in that behalf, Further, on 20.08.2024 Letters were issued to all 10 eligible structure holders, directing to accept allotment by 22.08.2024 or else their structures would be demolished at their risk and cost and Letters were being issued to remaining non eligible structure holders that there structures will be removed within 24 hrs after receipt of this letter or else their structures will be demolished at their risk and cost. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit T are the copies of the letters dated 20.08.2024 and Allotment letters of all the eligible structure holders. Therefore, the said letters, were to be pasted on the concerned structures. However, Shri. Ravindra Gaikwad (R.E.) who was sent to paste these notices on the concerned structures was prevented by the structure holders from pasting the said letters on the concerned structures, moreover as per the Govt. Circular dtd. 29-06-2021 Mentioned structures are not to be demolished during period of monsoon from 1st June to 30th September.

I submit that the Respondents and all officers have sincerely and earnestly tried to comply with the orders of this Hon'ble Court and there has not been any intentional disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court by any of its officers.

I say that the statements and facts in paragraphs nos. 1 to 4 are made on the basic of information received from the relevant files, which I believe the same to be true. I say that the legal submissions in paragraphs nos. 1 to 4 are made on the basis of legal advice which I believe to be true."

[29] Evidently, the illegal occupants were protected. It was only on 4 th October 2024 that 47 of the 52 structures were demolished as is evident from paragraph 13 of the Affidavit filed on 27th November 2024 by Shri Dhanaji Herlekar.

[30] We find force and substance in Ms Doshi's contentions, that the law-abiding Society members waited for 24 years for removal of the illegal structures. No action whatsoever was taken against the slumlords who erected the illegal structure or the occupants, on the contrary by the BMC, Police and Municipal Corporators went out of their way to protect them and even set up a Public Toilet with Public Funds. BMC's inaction, even after Court Orders, demonstrates its complacency. It is these illegal occupants, who now demand relocation of their choice and as per their dictate, which cannot be accepted.

[31] Weighing this case on the scales of justice, in hindsight, the slumlord was successful in erecting the structures and giving it to these occupants. We observe that no strict actions, that would act as a deterrent, have been initiated against slumlords, thus are encouraged, so are the unscrupulous elected representatives of our Society, the Officers of BMC and the Police. This perpetuates illegalities. Then to top it, Government comes up with schemes for rehabilitation that are freely saleable, all at the cost of the law-abiding citizens and ratepayers. All the persons responsible in strictly following and/or adhering to and implementing the provisions of B.M.C. Act and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) are not implementing it in its proper letter and spirit. Infact they are obliging and protecting the persons acting contrary to it, by not taking any action against them.

[32] Our conclusion is that, an illegal action perpetuates even after Court's Orders as no action is taken against the wrongdoers, due to which justice is evidently delayed and consequently denied. The city, already overwhelmed by such illegalities, can only recover through the efforts of ethical individuals in power and strong judicial actions. The Courts though overburdened on account of various factors should not be seen as a hapless observer and cannot certainly be used a tool to permit and perpetuate illegality.

[33] Necessarily, the Court has to make it right. Courts must uphold the law and punish wrongdoers and protect the law-abiding citizens. Justice demands the removal of such illegal structures to uphold the dignity of the law-abiding public and the rule of law.

[34] Ms. Singh's clients are not eligible. They were declared illegal occupants on 18th June 2015 as they were under no Scheme or Policy. The Order attained finality as was not challenged. BMC or the Municipal Commissioner could not have taken the stand that they were eligible in any manner and form and entertain applications to check their eligibility. If there was any doubt, or if they were protected under any Scheme or Policy the BMC ought to have approached the Court for clarification and modification of the Order.

[35] All these years evidently, the BMC misled the Court to believe and consider the relocation of the so-called eligible occupants. In the garb of so-called legal occupants, they have protected the illegal occupants for 24 years since they constructed and for 9 years even after Court Order dated 28th June 2015. We emphasize that an illegality since inception firstly should not be condoned and secondly, if tolerated, certainly cannot be perpetuated to this extent.

The Single Bench of this Court in Reverend Father, Peter Paul Fernandes, Parish Priest and Sole Trustee of the Church of St. Francis Xavier v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 AIR(Bom) 445, 1991 SCCOnLineBom 92 : at page 448 held that the demolition of the unauthorised structure is to be undertaken by the B.M.C. and the Revenue authorities and that it is they alone who can deal with the squatters. Slum colonies in Bombay had their origin in acts of trespass and the private citizens suffering could do little to get even with the wrong doers. For this reason, demolition of unauthorised structures is the responsibility of the Corporation or the demolition squad of the Revenue authorities. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the squatters are the creations of either slumlords or they themselves and that where the lands encroached upon are of private parties; the latter having no remedy against the wrong doers. This ratio is accepted by the Division Bench in the case of Solitaire Builders and Developers vs MCGM & Ors in Contempt Petition No.90 of 2024 dated 21 st November, 2024.

[36] This Court in the case of Arts and Commerce College, Pen v The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,1993 SCCOnLineBom 317 had observed about the conduct of bureaucrats. Paragraph 10 thereof reads as under:

". What punishment is the next question. Day in and day out the law-abiding aggrieved persons are bringing to the notice of the Courts the increasing instances of scant regard to the orders of the Court, particularly by the bureaucracy. Authority of the Court is being eroded., giving serious blow to the very concept of rule of law. Courts do not resort to punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. As a matter of course the power is used sparingly. But it appears that wrong signals are given by that generous attitude. Punishment is not for the Judges who have passed the judicious impersonal order, but is for protecting those law-abiding persons who, by compulsion and not by choice, are driven to Courts. Offence is thus in the nature of Sui Generis and Courts cannot continue to be mere silent spectators to what is happening when there is a duty to act. With willful defiance, the Court has to grapple with loofs of steel, for the punishment is intended to have deterrent effect upon those who are similarly inclined."

[37] The situation that prevailed in 1993 has worsened over the period of 30 years as the slums have grown manifold. These illegal occupants hold the law-abiding citizens to ransom. There are several such cases that this Court dealt with. In our view, all of this has resulted as the power of contempt was being used sparingly. This is a classic illustration as to how law-abiding citizens staying in a Society were dragged to Court on account of hardships caused by the illegal squatters and landgrabbers.

[38] Considering the above, we pass the following orders:-

a) The Petition in Writ Petition (L) No.29625 of 2024 (Slum Dwellers Petition) is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- payable to the Everard Society within a period of four weeks from today;

b) The stay Orders dated 27th November 2018 and 27th September 2024 stand vacated with immediate effect;

c) The Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No.29625 of 2024 be vacated immediately and the BMC is directed to demolish their structures forthwith;

d) After the work of demolition, all consequential actions of restoring the status quo ante shall be taken by the BMC at its own cost without any demur to the Petitioner Society.

e) The BMC is directed to take appropriate action against the Petitioners in furtherance of notice dated 22nd December 2015 under section 314 of the BMC Act or any other Notices issued against the illegal occupants that have been issued and not acted upon and if found guilty are directed to take action against them in accordance with law.

f) BMC is directed to expeditiously complete construction of D.P. Road for which the strip of land of Society was acquired.

g) The Municipal Commissioner of BMC to file a compliance Affidavit stating the outcome of the notices dated 22nd December 2015 against the Petitioners as well as the present Order. The Affidavit must also state who were the others responsible for the inactions and what action has been taken or proposed to be taken against them. It is clarified that the Affidavit shall be filed by the Municipal Commissioner himself and will not delegate his powers to any subordinate Officer.

h) Mr. Ajit Kumar Ambi Assistant Commissioner 'L' ward is held guilty of contempt of court for having disobeyed the Court Orders dated 18th June 2015, and 1st August 2017.

h-i) With a view to grant him an opportunity, to submit his say on the quantum of sentence, we direct the Registrar to issue him notice to appear before this Court on 27th January, 2025 along with his Reply to this Notice if any to be filed.

h-ii) The Additional Commissioner of BMC, (General Administration) is directed to serve this Notice upon Mr. Ajitkumar Tambi, making it returnable on 27th January, 2025.

h-iii) The Additional Commissioner of BMC, (General Administration) is directed to personally supervise the service of notice upon Mr. Ajitkumar Tambi.

i) All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this Order.

j) List the Contempt Petition on 27th January 2025 for further hearing