SSK/ 1 CHS/244/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.244 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2817 OF 2005 Madarasa Anjuman Habibiya & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. and Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. ... Prop.Respondent Nos. 7 to 10. Mr. S. K. Srivastav, Advocate for the Petitioners/Applicants. Mr. M. D. Naik, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms. Asha Bhambhwani i/b. Kiran Bhagatia for MMRDA. Mr. R. A. Jahagirdar with Mr. D. V. Deokar, Mr. P.K.Shroff, Mr. Himanshu Mahajan, Ms.Tania Johny, Pinakia Modi i/b. M/s. P.K.Shroff & Co., Advocate for proposed Respondent No.8. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas with Mr. Z.Andhyarujina, R. J Gagrat, M. Salian, Ms. I. Sen and Ms. Neha M. i/b. Gagrats, Advocates for proposed Respondent No.9. Mr. Suresh Gupte, Advocate for proposed Respondent No.7. Mr. Anil Menon with Mr.Rigved Sawant i/b. Anil Menon & Associates, Advocates for Respondent No.10. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: ( Per R. V. More, J.) The chamber summons is taken out by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- SSK/ 2 CHS/244/10 a) That the petitioners be permitted to join the proposed respondent as respondent nos.7 to 10 to the above petition. b) That the petitioners may be permitted to amend the petition as per the schedule annexed hereto. c) That pending hearing and final disposal of the above petition, the respondent nos. 1 to 6 be restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Hon’ble Court from granting any permission and/or sanctioning any permission to the proposed respondents for carrying out construction work on the said property more particularly described in paragraph-3 of the petition. d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above petition, respondent nos. 1 to 6 be restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Hon’ble Court from transferring the said property more particularly described at paragraph-3 of the petition in the name of the proposed respondents or to any other 3rd party. SSK/ 3 CHS/244/10 e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above petition, the proposed respondents be restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Hon’ble Court from carrying on any construction work of any nature on the said property more particularly described in paragraph-3 of the petition. f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above petiton, the proposed respondents be restrained by an Order and Injunction of this Hon’ble Court from entering into any Agreement, Contract, Understanding and/or Arrangement with any third party in respect of said property more particularly described in Paragraph-3 of the petition. g) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) to (f) above. h) For costs of this chamber summons; i) For such other order and reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. SSK/ 4 CHS/244/10 2. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition for direction to the respondents to restore properties mentioned in para 3 of the petition to the original owners i.e. the petitioners themselves, as the said lands have not been utilised by the respondents for last 35 years for the purpose for which it was acquired. The petitioners have also challenged the legality and validity of the awards dated 17th October, 1969 and 15th January, 1970. In short, it is the case of the petitioners that their properties were acquired for public purpose i.e. development and utilisation of the said land as “Industrial and Residential Area” are now proposed to be used for commercial purpose. By the present chamber summons, the petitioners have contended that the proposed respondent nos. 7 to 10 be added as party respondents to the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioners have also sought to add paragraph 25Ato 25E, 28A to 28F and prayers b1 to b6. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have acquired the properties mentioned in the writ petition for public purpose at very less rate. However, under the guise of acquisition they were making huge profits by selling the said plot to the proposed respondents and private builders. In these facts and circumstances, they are sought to be impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition and declaration is claimed that the said allotment order is illegal and bad in law. SSK/ 5 CHS/244/10 4. The learned counsel for the proposed respondents and learned counsel for the respondents opposed the chamber summons mainly on the ground that petitioners had initially filed two chamber summonses viz. Chamber Summons Nos.8 and 58 of 2006 in the above writ petition for the reliefs similar to those claimed in the present chamber summons and those chamber summonses have already been dismissed by this Court and, as such, the present chamber summons is not maintainable and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the affidavit in support of the present chamber summons as well as the proceedings of the Chamber Summons nos. 8 and 58 of 2006, we find no merit in the present chamber summons. The petitioners had filed Chamber Summons no.8 of 2006 for amendment of the petition in terms of schedule annexed to the said chamber summons. Chamber Summons No.58 of 2006 was filed for permission to amend the title of the above writ petition and implead respondent nos. 7 to 11 as party respondents in the above petition. The proposed respondent nos. 10 and 11 viz. Reliance Industries Ltd. and Jet Airways in Chamber Summons No. 58 of 2006 are sought to be added as respondent nos. 8 and 9 in the present chamber summons. The affidavit in support to Chamber Summons SSK/ 6 CHS/244/10 No.58 of 2006 discloses that the petitioners filed the said chamber summons on the basis of proposal of the Minister to sell the open land which the petitioners found to be true on the basis of advertisement which had appeared in the newspaper. In para 4 of the affidavit in support to said chamber summons, the petitioners had specifically averred that the buyers like Kolkatta based TCG Urban Infrastructure Ltd., Jet Airways, Enam Financial Consultants Ltd., Shree Naman Developers and Reliance Industries have bidded for purchasing the said land. So far as Chamber Summons No.8 of 2006 is concerned, it was for amendment of the writ petition and in proposed para 26 B, the petitioners averred that an article had appeared in the Times of India dated 7th January, 2006 that “Nine Bandra-Kurla plots sold for Rs.1,190 cr” and the buyers are Kolkatta based TCG Urban Infrastructure Ltd., Jet Airways, Enam Financial Consultants and the Green Bird Developers Pvt. Ltd.. 6. The prayer claimed by the petitioners in Chamber Summons No. 58 of 2006 was rejected by a Division Bench of the Court by an order dated 21st July, 2006. The Division Bench observed that the chamber summons is based on purported statement made by a Minister, and that cannot be the policy of the Government. It was further observed that so far as relief of addition of parties is concerned, their presence is not required for deciding the controversy. The Chamber Summons No.8 of 2006 was disposed of SSK/ 7 CHS/244/10 for the reasons given in Chamber Summons No.58 of 2006. We find that the relief claimed in the earlier chamber summonses viz. Chamber Summons Nos. 8 and 58 of 2006 and the present chamber summons are similar. The earlier Chamber Summons Nos. 8 and 58 of 2006 have been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court after hearing the petitioners on merit and therefore, for the same relief, the petitioners cannot maintain present chamber summons. 7. Mr. Srivastav, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Chamber Summons No.58 of 2006 was disposed of, as this Court found that the said chamber summons was based on the purported statement made by a Minister. However, the present chamber summons is filed on the basis of report in the newspaper. We are not impressed by the submission. After perusal of the affidavit in support to the Chamber Summons Nos. 8 and 58 of 2006, we find that those chamber summonses were filed not only on the basis of the statement of the Minister but also on the basis of reports in the newspaper. By filing earlier chamber summonses, the petitioners claimed that proposed respondent nos. 8 & 9 be impleaded as party respondents to the above writ petition. This chamber summonses have been dismissed on merits. Though in the present chamber summons, the petitioners have disclosed that they had earlier filed Chamber Summons No.58 of 2006, they have not disclosed that SSK/ 8 CHS/244/10 they had also filed Chamber Summons No.8 of 2006 and the same was disposed of. In the said chamber summonses, the petitioners had raised contentions similar to the present chamber summons. The petitioners cannot again and again claim the impleadment of these respondents as party to the writ petition. 8. Be that as it may, the land in question is described in paragraph 3 of the petition. The petitioners claimed that the said land is acquired from them for public purpose i.e. “For development and utilisation of the said land as Industrial and Residential Area.” However, the respondents are proposing to use the same for commercial purpose. By the present chamber summons, the petitioner sought to amend the petition so as to challenge the allotment of the plots situated in Bandra-Kurla Complex in favour of proposed respondent nos. 7 to 10. The petitioners, even prima facie, could not point out that the plots which are being allotted to proposed respondent nos. 7 to 10 are, in fact, out of the land mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition, which was acquired by the respondents for public purpose. In the absence of any link between the land acquired from the petitioners and plot allotted to the proposed respondents by respondent no.5, the petitioners cannot claim impleadment of the proposed respondents. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, in our opinion, the prayers (a) and (b) of the chamber summons cannot be SSK/ 9 CHS/244/10 granted. In view of the refusal of prayers (a) and (b), rest of the prayers in the chamber summons will not survive for consideration. We find that the chamber summons is without any substance and same is dismissed accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)