1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1898 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2345 OF 1983 Adi Dara Patel & Anr. .. Plaintiffs V/s Maria Sofia Jehangir Patel & Ors. .. Defendants And The Additional Collector & C.A. (ULC) & Anr. .. Applicants Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sharan Jagtiani i/b Mahimtura & Co. for the plaintiffs. Mr. Narendra Walawalkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for the applicants, in support. Mr. A.T. Suryawanshi i/b Markand Gandhi & Co. for defendant nos.1a, 1b and 4a to 4d. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 5th MAY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 2. This chamber summons is taken out by the applicants, i.e. Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”) and the State of Maharashtra, for two reliefs, namely (a) to obtain leave of the Court for taking further 2 steps in respect of the land declared as surplus out of survey no.141-B Part, CTS no.864 of village Amboli, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai (for short “the suit land”) and (b) to implead the applicants as party defendants to the suit. 3. When the chamber summons came up before me on 27th April 2010, the applicants through their counsel informed the Court that the applicants do not wish to press prayer (b) and an order to that effect was passed. Today, the matter is heard on the question of prayer (a). 4. The case of the applicants, stated shortly, is that an exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act was initially granted in respect of the suit land. However, that exemption lapsed on account of breach of conditions subject to which the exemption was granted. On lapse of the exemption, the suit land became surplus and declared as such under the provisions of the ULC Act. Notices were issued to the owners under sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act. After considering the objections of the owners to the said notices, possession of the suit land was taken over by the Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the ULC Act on 28th March 2007. Since the applicants are in possession of the 3 suit land, they now want permission of the Court to take further steps regarding the suit land in view of the fact that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as the receiver in this suit. 5. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, submitted that the actual possession of the suit land has not been taken by the Additional Collector & Competent Authority and in fact the land continues to be in possession of the Court Receiver. In the alternative, he submitted that if the possession has been taken, it has been taken without issuance of a notice to the Court Receiver and without permission of the Court and, therefore, the alleged act of taking possession is clearly illegal and unauthorised, and the applicants cannot take advantage of such illegal act. He further submitted that taking of possession or even an attempt to take possession of the suit land from the Receiver without permission of the Court amounts to interference in the administration of justice and, therefore, the applicants have committed contempt of court. He submitted that action in contempt be taken against the applicants and the chamber summons be dismissed. 4 6. Mr. Dwarkadas handed in compilation (two volumes) containing copies of records of the Writ Petition No.1468 of 2009. The compilation is taken on record. From the documents in the compilation, it appears that the Court Receiver was appointed in respect of the suit land on or about 4th July 1984 and the Receiver took physical possession thereof on 17th September 1984. On 19th September 1984, the Receiver informed to the Collector that he had taken possession of the suit (page 119 of the compilation). The applicants therefore had knowledge that the Receiver was in possession of the suit land. One of the parties to the suit by his letter dated 21st September 2006 (page 150 of the compilation) had also informed to the Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the ULC Act (applicant no.1) that the Receiver was in possession of the suit land. The fact that the Receiver was in possession was again informed and reiterated by a party’s letter to the Additional Collector & Competent Authority dated 19th December 2006 (page 164 of the compilation). Not only the State of Maharashtra (applicant no.2) but the concerned officers of the State including the applicant no.1, who was dealing with the ULC case, were aware that the Court Receiver was appointed as the receiver by this Court and the Court Receiver was in 5 possession of the suit land. Despite this and ignoring that the Court Receiver was in possession of the suit land, the Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the ULC Act directed and ordered the City Survey Officer to take possession of the suit land. The City Survey Officer, Andheri, who was then then unaware of the Court Receiver being in possession, went to the site for taking possession on or about 9th March 2007 (page 214 of the compilation). There, he noticed that the owners were not in possession of the suit land but it was in possession of the Court Receiver. He, therefore, rightly returned back without taking possession of the suit land and by his letter dated 12th March 2007, informed the Additional Collector & Competent Authority that the suit land was in possession of the Court Receiver. After all this and without any notice to the Court Receiver and without seeking permission of this Court the applicant no.1 - Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the ULC Act issued telephonic direction and ordered the City Survey Officer to take possession of the suit land. The City Survey Officer, feeling bound by the orders of his superiors, complied with the oral directions and purportedly took exparte possession of the suit land without notice to the Court Receiver. He informed his action by letter dated 29th March 6 2007 (page 223 of the compilation). 7. It is a sorry state of affairs that the applicant no.1, who is a senior officer of the State, despite being aware that the suit land was in possession of the Court Receiver appointed by this Court and despite the initial refusal of a junior officer (City Survey Officer) to take possession in view of the fact that the land was in possession of the Court Receiver, with total disregard to the usual procedure of obtaining leave of the Court issued him direction to take possession. This shows his scant regard for the Court and prima facie amounts to interference in the administration of justice. 8. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, invited my attention to paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support of the chamber summons and submitted that the averments made therein show aggravated form of contempt as in the affidavit it has been asserted that action for taking possession has been taken despite knowledge of the fact that the Court Receiver was in possession of the suit property. 9. In the light of these facts, I cannot grant permission to 7 the applicants to take any further steps in pursuance of the ULC Act which incidentally since been repealed. On the other hand, it is necessary to issue show cause notices to the applicant no.1 and State who sought to interfere in the administration of justice by dispossessing or at least attempting to dispossess the Court Receiver appointed by this Court without notice to him and without seeking permission of the Court. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (a) The chamber summons is dismissed. (b) Issue notice to Mr. S.R. Jondhale, who was the Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the ULC Act on 28th March 2007 who issued direction to the City Survey Officer to take possession of the suit land and also to the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai as to why action in contempt be not taken against them for interfering in the administration of justice by dispossessing and/or attempting to dispossess the Court Receiver appointed by this Court of the suit land without leave of this Court and even without notice to the Court Receiver. Notice is made returnable on 28th June 2010. 8 (c) The State shall furnish the address of Mr. Jondhale to the office within one week. (d) Show cause notices be placed before the appropriate Bench for consideration and hearing. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)