Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with relief for occupants whose structures Mumbai’s Municipal Corporation had demolished for road widening without due process. The High Court had balanced public access against private interests by ordering alternative premises rather than restitution and permitting the claimed owners to seek development rights without deciding title. The Corporation’s concessions and non-perverse findings concerning the structures supported dismissal of its petitions.
Issues
- Whether the Corporation established grounds to disturb alternative-accommodation and development-rights directions following the demolitions.
Held
- The High Court balanced the interests involved by avoiding restitution once a public road had been constructed and granting substitute relief. Its direction to consider development rights for the claimed owners did not adjudicate title and accorded with the Corporation’s own willingness to grant such benefits to the rightful owner. (¶¶ 7, 8, 15, 16)
- The Corporation had already accepted four tenants’ eligibility, and those petitions had been disposed of earlier. Its subsequent objections conceded eligibility for three more, leaving only four disputed tenants. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18)
- The High Court found high-handed demolition and taking of possession, and the Legal Services Committee found that the structures predated 1961. Those factual findings were not perverse and furnished no ground for interference in special leave jurisdiction. (¶¶ 12, 19)
Result
Special leave petitions dismissed without costs, leaving the High Court’s relief in force; no title determination was made in favour of the claimed landowners.