-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 758 of l99l Shaikh Nizam Shaikh Dawood ..Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 873 of l99l Hasan Yusuf Husein .....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 875 of l99l K.H.Shrihari Vishwa Karma ..Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 876 of l99l Shankar Pawar.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 877 of l99l K Amir Ahmed. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 879 of l99l Ramesh T Gujar ....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 880 of l99l Shaikh Nawab Husein .....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents -2- with Writ Petition No. 882 of l99l Abdul Haji Rehman ...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 883 of l99l Gitadevi H Rallan.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 884 of l99l Siraj Kasamali.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 885 of l99l Iftekharuddin Nasiruddin ...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 886 of l99l Sardar Kanwar Anand.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 890 of l99l M A Gani. ...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 891 of l99l Rammurat B Varma ...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 892 of l99l -3- Dawood Ibrahim.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 893 of l99l Kirti C Chhedda.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 894 of l99l Hatimala Chindiwala....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 895 of l99l with C.A.No.2567 of 2004 Hasan Virji .. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 897 of l99l with C.A.No.2568 of 2004 Jamil Malik.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 898 of l99l Kadar Addu. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 899 of l99l Gulam Husein Abdul.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 900 of l99l -4- Abubaker Siddiqui.....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 90l of l99l with C.A.No 2569 of 2004 Laxmichand Mulgi....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 902 of l99l Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahim ..Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 903 of l99l Dadasaheb Shinde.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No.904 of l99l Shiv Mohd Hasan. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 905 of l99l with C.A.No,.2570 of 2004 Noorali Nanji. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 906 of l99l Avadh Bihari Malik.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 907 of l99l Shaikh Usman. Petitioner -5- vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 908 of l99l Bhavani Narayan Shetty...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 909 of l99l Malik Akram. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 9l0 of l99l Rasiklal C Chheda....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No.9ll of l99l Pravin C Chheda.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No.9l2 of l99l Yusuf Shaikhali.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 9l4 of l99l Amirali V Dinani.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. 9l5 of l99l Ebrahim Mohamad.....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents -6- with Writ Petition No. 9l6 of l99l Rajkisan C Sharma....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l086 of l99l Palsingh Girdharsingh by LRs..Petitioners vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l087 of l99l Suresh Govind Jamsandekar ...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l088 of l99l with C.A.No.257l of 2004 Palsingh Girdharsingh by LRs..Petitioners vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l089 of l99l Savitribai Harischandra....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l09l of l99l with C.A No.2572 of 2004 Abdul Samad Abdul Sattar...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l092 of l99l with C.A.No.2573 of 2004 Abdul Samad Abdul Sattar...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents -7- with Writ Petition No. l093 of l99l Suhas G Kambli.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l094 of l99l with C.A.No.2574 of 2004 Mohamed Sharif Abdula..Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No.l095 of l99l Suresh Govind Jamsandekar...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No.ll00 of l99l with C.A No.259l of 2004 Veerandevi Obhan and anr...Petitioners vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. ll0l of l99l with C.A.No.2575 of 2004 Veerandevi Obhan and anr..Petitioners vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. ll56 of l99l with C.A.No.2577 of 2004 Anwar Baul Shaikh.. Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l400 of l99l with C.A.No.2578 of 2004 Gurumukh Singh Daa Singh..Petitioner vs -8- The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l40l of l99l with C.A.No.2579 of 2004 Sadashiv Ganpat Pungale...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l402 of l99l Baburao T Devekar ...Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l403 of l99l Giansingh Kaharsingh....Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents with Writ Petition No. l404 of l99l Mrs Joginder Kaur Niranjansingh..Petitioner vs The State of Mah and ors...Respondents Mr. D.S.Parikh with Ms Premila Shah for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.758, 873, 875, 876, 877, 879, 880, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 890, 89l, 892, 893, 894, 895, 897, 898, 900. 900,90l, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906,907, 908, 909, 9l0, 9ll, 9l2, 9l4, 9l5, 9l6, ll56, l400, l40l, l402, l403, and l404 of l99l. Mr. C.R.Sonawane AGP for State Mr V T Walawalkar with Mr R A Revankar for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. l087, l088, l089, l09l, l092, l093, l094, l095 of l99l Ms S S Bhende GP for State Mr K D Shah with Ms Shah for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos ll00 of l99l and ll0l of l99l Mr. V.P.Malvankar AGP for State -9- CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.C DHARMADHIKARI JJ. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.C DHARMADHIKARI JJ. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.C DHARMADHIKARI JJ. Dated 29.l0.2004 Dated 29.l0.2004 Dated 29.l0.2004 P.C: l. These petitions under Articles 226 and 227 seek to challenge the common order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay dated 3l.8.l990 in MA No. l78 of l987 to MA No.244 of l987 and M.A.No 9 of l988. By the said order the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the appeals and confirmed the orders dated 26.ll.l985 and l6.9.l987 passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction )Act, l955. This matter has a chequered history. The petitioners are occupants of Plot Nos.l to l0 situated at Nowroji Hill Road No. 9 and Maheshwari Road, Dongri, Mumbai. This property was acquired by the State Government sometime in l945 for providing residential quarters to the police personnel in active service in Mumbai Police. It appears that the Government could not make budgetary provision and provide finance for construction of the buildings as proposed for housing the police and therefore the then government decided to give the property to private individuals on temporary basis. It appears that these individuals constructed structures on the -10- said property and same were sub let to various parties including present petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in occupation of the property since l954. 2. It appears that first eviction proceedings were adopted in l96l and second in the year l977. Since the State Government could not get possession of the property eviction proceedings were again started in l983. It may be mentioned that series of eviction proceedings were fought and contested at all stages from time to time.It appears that in the past Mis Appeals were filed in the City Civil Court against the order of the Competent Authority in eviction proceedings and the matters were carried upto High Court. Besides the proceedings under the Eviction Act, several suits were initiated by various occupants of the property in the City Civil Court for protecting possession and orders passed in such interlocutory applications were also carried upto High Court. In the third eviction proceedings which were initiated in l983 order of eviction was passed by the Competent Authority. Being aggreived the petitioners filed Misc Appeals before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court Bombay who dismissed the appeals by a common -11- order dated 3l.8.l990. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners do not press various issues raised in the petitions. The learned counsel, however, contend that the petitioners are entitled to protection of Government Resolutions dated ll.7.200l and 22.6.2004. It is contended that these G.Rs are issued by the State Government for protecting the occupants/ residents/non- residents of the zopadpattis by issuing photopasses to them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners all the occupants of Plot Nos.l to l0 are also protected by the aforesaid G.Rs. The issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit and protection of the said GRs has to be decided by the Competent Authority viz the Collector of Mumbai. By consent of parties we direct the Collector to ascertain whether the petitioners or any of them are entitled to the protection of the said GRs dated ll.7.200l and 22.6.2004. Till the Collector decides the entitlement of the petitioners and other occupants of Plot Nos.l to l0, interim order dated 22.8.l99l passed by the Supreme Court shall continue to operate. In case the order of the Collector is -12- adverse to the petitioners it willnot be enforced for a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order of the Collector to the petitioners’ counsel. All contentions on merit are left open to the parties. Petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.