Bharat Pandurang Kadam v. Mumbai Ports Authority

2025:BHC-OS:8182-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 22 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 526 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11830 OF 2025 1.

Bharat Pandurang Kadam, H.No. 12, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, Sewri, Mumbai-400 015.

2.

Gulam Mohammed Rafiq Panjabi, H.No. 01, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 3.

Mohammed Salim Rafiq Panjabi, H.No. 03, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 4.

Mohammad Ali Shoukat Ali Shaikh, H.No. 04, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, ewri, Mumbai- 400 015.

5.

Mohammed Asalam Jamadar Jamadar, H.No. 05, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 1/12

6.

Samshad Hadi Shaikh, H.No. 06, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 7.

Chandbi Gulab Shaikh, H.No. 07, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, Sewri, Mumbai- 400 015 8.

Jyoti Dagadu Gotmare, H.No. 09, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 9.

Pandurang Vishwanath Dalavi, H.No. 10, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, Sewri, Mumbai- 400 015 10.

Badarshah Haidar Badshah, H.No. 11, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 11.

Asama Banoo Mohammed Mustakim Shaikh, H.No. 13, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, Sewri, Mumbai- 400 015 12.

Mohammed Ibrahim Jamil Khan, H.No. 14, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 2/12

13.

Shivmohan Motilal Yadav, H.No. 16, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 14.

Kalim Badruddin Ansari, H.No. 18, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 15.

Bimlavati Motilal Yadav, H.No.19, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 16.

Salim Rajjak Fakir, H.No. 20, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 17.

Mumtaj Rajjak Fakir, H.No. 21, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 18.

Abdul Usman Solkar, H.No. 22, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 19.

Abdul Aziz Abdul Ismail Jamadar, H.No. 23, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 3/12

20.

Vishnu Pandurang Sapkal, H.No. 24, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 21.

Asha Rajesh Tuplonde, H.No. 25, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 22.

Badruddin Shaubat Ansari, H.No. 26, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 23.

Malikunisha Mohammed Mustaqim Shaikh, H.No. 27, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 24.

Ramesh Kumar Indradev Tiwari, H.No. 28, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 25.

Mangala Manohar Jadhav, H.No. 29, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 26.

Pandurang Ramchandra Kadam, H.No. 30, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 4/12

27.

Ajarunnisa Ameer Ahmed, H.No. 31, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 28.

Mustaqim Ahamed Shaikh, H.No. 32, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 29.

Azmatali Bechanali Khan, H.No. 33, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 30.

Akbar Ali Hasan Shaikh, H.No. 34, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 31.

Madhuri Mahajan Paikra, H.No. 35, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 32.

Bharati Kisan Lokhande, H.No. 36, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 33.

Pramod Gajanan Gangan, H.No. 38, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 5/12

34.

Satish Govind Wable, H.No. 39, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 35.

Sarita Sitaram Pavaskar, H.No. 40, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 36.

Pratibha Prabhakar Dolas, H.No. 41, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 37.

Motiram Sonu Arde, H.No. 42, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 38.

Fulchand Laxman Pawar, H.No. 43, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 39.

Ram Fulchand Pawar, H.No. 44, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 40.

Jahangir Ahmed Zakir Ali Qureshi, H.No. 46, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 6/12

41.

Mohammed Javed Mohmmed Ali Shabdi, H.No. 48, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 42.

Govind Baburao Vable, H.No. 49, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 43.

Santosh Bhiva Kulaye, H.No. 50, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 44.

Rita Rajendra Tiwari, H.No. 51, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 45.

Shahjahan Mohd. Shabbir Shaikh, H.No. 52, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 46.

Nisarul Haq Jiyaul Shaikh, H.No. 53, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 47.

Nasihat Parveen Mohd Naeem Shaikh, H.No. 54, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, 7/12

48.

Aijazulhaq Nisarulhaq Shaikh, H.No. 55, Rajiv Gandhi Vasahat, ...Review Petitioners/ Applicants/Original Petitioners

Versus

1.

Mumbai Ports Authority, (Formerly known as The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai) A statutory corporation having its registered office at Vijay Deep, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

2.

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, D Block BKC, Naupada, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051.

3.

Union of India, Through Office of Government Pleaders, Original Side, Bombay High Court, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001

...Respondents

Mr. R. K. Sharma a/w Mr. Soheb Shaikh Mr. Abdul Aziz, Mr. Malcolm Vaz, for Petitioners/Applicants.

Mr. Vishal Talsania a/w Ruop Baju, Mr. Ahmed Padela i/b The law Point for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Jagdish A. Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent No.2 CORAM : A. S. GADKARI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 8th MAY 2025.

Judgment :- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) 1.

The Petitioners seek review of the Order dated 10th January 2025 whereby the Petition was dismissed with a direction to comply with 8/12

the impugned eviction notice dated 30th October 2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 and vacate the premises within a period of four months from the date of uploading the said Order. The said Order was uploaded on 13th January 2025.

2.

The original Petition assailed the eviction notice issued by the Respondent No.1 under Bye-law No.9 of its general Bye-laws. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Khurshid Ahmed Maksud Ahmed Khan v. Mumbai Port Authority & Ors.,1 in which case similar action was assailed by other set of Petitioners, had held that, the Petitioners have no legal right to continue to encroach the land belonging to the Respondent No.1 and there is no material to indicate that, there was any lease, license or allotment in favour of the Petitioners regarding the premises.

3.

The Petitioners in the present Petition also did not have any material to establish their legal rights or entitlement to occupy the said premises. There were other Petitions, also dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the same ground. These decisions were assailed in the Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petitions (C) No.15137 of 2018. The Supreme Court by its Order dated 11th June 2018 dismissed the said Petitions only extending the time to vacate granted by this Court by a further period of three months from the date of its Order. Writ Petition (L) No.6883 of 2024.

9/12

4.

Considering that a challenge to the Bye-law No.9 was also rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the said Order being upheld by the Supreme Court, we were not inclined to interfere in the original Petition filed by these Petitioners and hence, dismissed the same by the impugned Order. The Petitioners were granted period of four months to vacate the said premises from the date of uploading the said Order. It is this Order, which is sought to be reviewed by these Petitioners. 5.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, counsel appeared for the Petitioners. Despite the fact that there was no NOC given by the earlier counsel/advocate on record of the original Writ Petition, we proceeded to hear Mr. Sharma on his oral statement that, Mr. Prerak Choudhary, the earlier Advocate had no objection to him representing the Petitioners. 6.

Mr. Sharma sought to re-argue the original Writ Petition on merits. Although no such ground was taken in the Review Petition, he contended that, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLPs against Orders passed by this Court in earlier Writ Petitions had extended the time granted by this Court by a further period of three months and hence, this Court, in the present matter ought to have given these Petitioners corresponding time to vacate. No other ground was either urged before us, nor is pleaded in the Review Petition.

7.

Heard the parties and perused the Review Petition. The notice that was assailed in the original Writ Petition was dated 30th October 10/12

2023. By the impugned Order dated 10th January 2025, i.e., more than fourteen months after the notice was issued, we granted further period of four months to the Petitioners to vacate. Thus, the Petitioners had sufficient time to vacate the premises.

8.

The legal position pertaining to Review Petitions is settled. A Review Petition is not and should not be an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. The practice to file such Review Petitions as a routine and that too with change of counsels is deprecated. We entertained the Petitioners despite the substantive defect in the Petition considering the request of the counsel and his statement made at bar that, the earlier counsel had given his no objection and that, he would place the same on record.

9.

A Review Petition is only maintainable if there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Petitioners or could not be produced by them. Similarly, a Review Petition can be entertained if there is any mistake or error on the face of record of the matter or for any other sufficient reason. From the grounds taken by these Petitioners and arguments advanced across the bar, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor any new material that has emerged after the Order was passed. There is no other sufficient or reasonable ground made out for a review of the impugned Order.

11/12

10.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Review Petition is dismissed.

11.

In view of dismissal of Review Petition, nothing further survives in Interim Application (L) No.11830 of 2025 and is also disposed off.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 12/12 Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/05/2025 14:59:30