Swachh Bharat Mission’s objective is to ensure open defecation free cities and scientific collection and processing of solid waste: Bombay High Court

 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docR.M. AMBERKAR(Private Secretary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONAPPEAL FROM ORDERNO. 9596 OF 2021WITHINT. APPLICATIONNO. 9597 OF 2021Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbaithrough Assistant MunicipalCommissioner H East Ward...Appellant VersusNirmal Nagar 1 Co operative HousingSociety Association Ltd & Ors...Respondents...................Mr. N.V. Walawalkar Senior Advocate a w Ms. Madhuri More i byMrs. A.K. Savla for the Appellant Mr. Sachin Kadam for Respondent No. 1 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV J. RESERVED ON : MAY 7 2021. PRONOUNCED ON : MAY 18 2021.JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. N.V. Walawalkar learned SeniorAdvocate for the Appellant Original Defendant No. 1 and Mr.Sachin Kadam for Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff.2. This Appeal from Order is filed to challenge theorder dated 09.03.2021 passed by City Civil Court Dindoshi Mumbai in Notice of Motion No. 21 in S.C. Suit No. 7 of2021 whereby the trial Court has made the said Notice ofMotion absolute in terms of prayer clauses(b) and(b) andof the Notice of Motionreads thus: "(a) That pending hearing and final disposal of the above suit thisHon ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant No. 1 to stay itshands and remove the partly carried out construction activity at thesuit plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 418 being red portion shown inlay out planThat pending hearing and final disposal of the above suit thisHon ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant No. 3 toimplement the Hon ble Court s order and restrain any person fromcarrying out any construction on the suit plot of land bearing C.T.S.No. 418 as shown in red colour in the lay out plan bearing Exhibit"E" hereto and also to maintain law and order at siteThat pending hearing and final disposal of the above suit thisHon ble Court be pleased to grant temporary order and injunctionrestraining the Defendant No. 1 its officers servants agents andperson or persons claiming through or under them from carrying outany construction activities of public toilet in the suit premises shownin red colour in the lay out plan on plot bearing C.T.S. No. 418 beingExhibit "E" hereto."3. By consent of the parties the Appeal from Orderis taken up for hearing. For the sake of convenience weshall refer to the parties as they were referred to before thetrial Court i.e Appellant will be referred to as Defendant No.1 Respondent No. 1 herein will be referred to as Plaintiff andRespondent Nos. 2 & 3 will be referred to as Defendant No. 2& Defendant No. 3 respectively.4. Briefly stated Plaintiff is a Federation of severalCo op. housing societies in Nirmal Nagar Area BandraMumbai. Suit bearing L.C. Suit No. 21 has been filedby the Plaintiff for the following reliefs: on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.doc"(a) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to declare that the work beingcarried out at the said site more particularly described in lay out planin red ink on the plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 418 of constructionof toilet by the Defendant No. 1 is illegal bad in law null and voidand is without proper permission of Competent Authority or of thePlaintiffThat this Hon ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant No. 1 tostay its hands and remove the partly carried out construction activityat the suit plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 418 being red portionshown in the lay out planThat this Hon ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant No. 3 toimplement the Hon ble Court s order and restrain any person fromcarrying out any construction on the suit plot of land bearing C.T.S.No. 418 as shown in red colour in the lay out plan being Exhibit "E"hereto and also to maintain law and order at siteThat this Hon ble Court be pleased to grant permanent order andinjunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 its officers servants agents and person or persons claiming through or under them fromcarrying out any construction activities of public toilet in the suitpremises shown in red colour in the lay out plan on plot bearingC.T.S. No. 418 being Exhibit "E" hereto."5. Mr. Walawalkar learned Senior Advocateappearing for the Appellant Defendant No. 1 Corporationhas assailed the impugned order dated 09.03.2021 andcontended that the Corporation was redeveloping andreconstructing an already existing dilapidated toilet blockstanding on an open portion space in C.T.S. No. 418.This is the factual position and the Plaintiff has suppressedthe same while approaching the trial court. He submittedthat the original toilet block having 40 toilet seats was in avery bad condition and practically unusable pursuant towhich several complaints were received from the localMunicipal Councillor of Beat 95 and a local organization on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.doccalled Prabhati Nirmal Sudhar Samitee. Thereafter theofficers of the Corporation jointly visited and inspected theoriginal toilet block structure along with the local Councillorand local residents from Nirmalnagar and Deepakwadi theoriginal toilet block was constructed in the year 2010 11from the MLA fund of then MLA Mr. PrakashSawant the WC pans were in broken condition bottoms of the doorswere corrugated and damaged completely vent pipes weredamaged at many places and the overall condition was filthyand bad. The photographs of the original toilet block whichare part of the paper book were also referred to andattention of the Court was drawn thereto. The same has notbeen denied by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff which ismaterial.5.1. Mr. Walawalkar submitted that considering thepopulation of the locality in Deepakwadi and Nirmalnagar asurvey was carried out by appointing CBO called PrathaSamajik Sanstha which reported that 57 toilet seats were therequirement considering that there were 788 ladies and 873gents residing in the said area. Accordingly estimation planning designing and construction of the RCC communitytoilet block was planned and executed to have 67 toiletseats. The Competent Authority for administrative sanction on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docapproved the proposal submitted by the Assistant Engineer(Maintenance department) H East ward on 19.03.2020 workorder was issued to Defendant No. 3 on 14.07.2020 andimmediately thereafter during the last monsoon the oldtoilet block was demolished and reconstruction workcommenced. Though Defendant No.2 MHADA had inquiredwith Defendant No. 1 Corporation about the permission itwas put to the notice of MHADA that the Secretary of UrbanDevelopment Department had directed that no NOC wouldbe required from the land holding authorities. NeverthelessMr. Walawalkar submitted that the Corporation shallapproach MHADA if so required and complete the formalitiesas both the Corporation and MHADA being instrumentalitiesof the State are planning authorities and carry out similarfunctions. 5.2. He submitted that the toilet block reconstructionis being done under the Central Government s SwachhaBharat Abhiyaan Scheme. He submitted that construction oflatrines did not require permission of the local bodies in asmuch as the land holding authorities did not have theauthority to disallow construction of latrinesunder the SwachhaBharat Missionfor censused structures noted in on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.doc2011 census. In any event it was submitted thatreconstruction of the toilet block was in place of the oldtoilet block and not a new construction it was in the largerpublic interest and would serve the population of the slumareas of Deepakwadi and Nirmalnagar who were using theearlier toilet block and who would now be benefited by thenew toilet block structure it was in the interest of residentsof the locality and in absence of a clear right title andinterest the Plaintiff Federation could not oppose the same.5.3. While referring to the impugned order Mr.Walawalkar submitted that the finding given in paragraphNo. 14 is prima facie on the face of record incorrect. Hesubmitted that it has been held in the impugned order thatDefendant No. 1 cannot enter on private land by any privateperson even though the work of construction of public toiletis in the larger public interest. He submitted that this findingand terming Defendant No. 1 as an encroacher on theprivate land owned by Defendant No. 2 MHADA forunauthorized construction of public toilet is incorrect in factand law. He submitted that the impugned order is passedon the basis that the Corporation is constructing a freshstructure toilet block without looking into the record thatthere existed an earlier toilet block of 40 seats. This aspect on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docis missing in the entire impugned order. The impugned orderproceeds on the basis that the Plaintiff is the owner of C.T.S.No. 418 and this is incorrect and erroneous in as much asthe Plaintiff does not have any conveyance in its favour.Merely on the basis of a lay out it cannot be assumed thatthe Plaintiff becomes the owner of C.T.S. No. 418 and morespecifically of the open space where other constructionshave been in place since long. He submitted that theargument of the Plaintiff that there are two other toiletblocks within 30 meters of the said site cannot becountenanced as proper estimation planning and executionof the present toilet block has been done based upon thepopulation of the area on the basis of the 2011 census. Hetherefore persuaded the Court to set aside and quash theimpugned order and allow the Appeal from Order filed by theCorporation in the larger public interest.6. PER CONTRA It is the case of the Plaintiff thatDefendant No. 1 Corporation suddenly started carrying outwork of construction of a public toilet block on an openportion of land in C.T.S No. 418. The case pitched by thelearned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff is that DefendantNo.1 Corporation suddenly out of blue started constructionwork of a public toilet structure on a portion of open plot of on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docland in C.T.S. No. 418. Plaintiff has asserted that the openspace where the toilet is being constructed is being used bythe members of the Plaintiff s Federation of Socieities for thepast several years Plaintiff is in settled possession of thesaid open space and is the owner of the said open space ofland Defendant No.1 Corporation has no right or permissionfrom Defendant No. 2 MHADA to construct or startconstructing on the said open space of land. This case isstated in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the plaint.6.1. At the outset Mr. Kadam on a query put by theCourt has very candidly admitted that the case stated inparagraph No. 15 is incorrect in as much as there wasalready an old dilapidated toilet structure standing on thesaid open portion space in C.T.S. No. 418 for several yearsand since it was in a precarious condition the Corporationdemolished the same and started construction of a newtoilet block with 67 seats for the benefit of the slumdwellers users. On the issue of title Mr. Kadam is not in aposition to show any document or evidence of title to thesaid open portion space where the public toilet blockstructure is being reconstructed and redeveloped by theCorporation save and except agitating that the entire C.T.S.No. 418 comprises of several buildings who are members of on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docthe Plaintiff Federation and the said buildings haveapproached MHADA for the purpose of redevelopment andMHADA has granted permission to the Plaintiff forredevelopment of the said lay out subject to conditions.Thus it is the case of the Plaintiff that by virtue of the layout being sanctioned by MHADA and the offer letter beinggiven to the Plaintiff Plaintiff has become the owner of landi.e C.T.S. No. 418 which includes the open portion spacewhere Defendant No. 1 Corporation is constructing thetoilet block. Therefore it is imperative on the part ofDefendant No. 1 Corporation to obtain permission andsanction from Defendant No. 2 MHADA as well as seekpermission of the Plaintiff Federation. Apart from the abovesubmission admittedly there is no documentary evidence ofany registered conveyance of C.T.S. No. 418 in favour of thePlaintiff Federation. 6.2. Mr. Kadam submitted that most of the societies inthe lay out are owners of their respective structures as thesame has been conveyed to them by Defendant No. 2MHADA. In view thereof several societies have becomeowners of the open land appurtenant to their respectivestructures and the land beneath their respective structures.Hence the Plaintiff has become owner of C.T.S. No. 418 in on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docits entirety. Mr. Kadam finally submitted that if the toiletblock is constructed on the said open portion space it willgive a reduced return of FSI to the various flat occupiers andmembers of the societies after redevelopment. Therefore he supported the impugned order and stated that it wascorrectly passed and the same needs to be upheld bydismissing the Appeal from Order and the Interim Applicationfiled by the Corporation.7. Submissions of the parties have been on pleadedlines. Perused the material on record and pleadings. 8. In its pleadings Plaintiff has not produced anydocumentary evidence of its title to C.T.S. No. 418.Therefore to accept the case of the Plaintiff that theFederation is the owner of C.T.S. No. 418 is difficult.Although the Plaintiff has produced an offer letter andsanctioned lay out of C.T.S. No. 418 the same does notcertify that the Plaintiff is the owner of C.T.S. No. 418.Certainly the members of the societies of the PlaintiffFederation are the owners of their respective buildings andthe land beneath the buildings and the area appurtenantthereto but to claim ownership of the open space portion1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docwhere the original toilet block existed or any other structurestanding on C.T.S. No. 418 without any documentaryevidence of tile of transfer and conveyance from DefendantNo. 2 MHADA cannot be accepted by the Court. Thus it isproved that the Plaintiff lacks title in respect of C.T.S. No.418. 8.1. That apart the critical fact which determines thecase of the parties is the fact that construction of the presentpublic toilet block is not a fresh construction. Admittedly theold toilet block of 40 seats was already present at the site onthe open portion space in C.T.S. No. 418. It wasdilapidated unusable and therefore under the SwachhaBharat Abhiyaan Scheme after following the due process oflaw reconstruction and redevelopment of the old toilet blockis contemplated executed and implemented. Thus thecase of the Plaintiff therefore cannot be countenanced thatthe Corporation is an encroacher of C .T.S. No. 418 andstarted construction of toilet block suddenly withoutpermission from MHADA or without permission from thePlaintiff. 8.2. The construction of the toilet block is a sociallybeneficial project for the residents of Deepakwadi and1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docNirmalnagar under the Swachha Bharat Abhiyaan Scheme. Itis surprising that despite the old toilet block being in placetill the last monsoon the averments of the Plaintiff that theopen space has been in existence since development and layout and also used by all the societies forming part andparcel of the said lay out is on the face of record false. It isan admitted position that C.T.S. No. 418 is surrounded byhutments and the old toilet block provided succour to thesehutments. Since it was in an unusable state of affairs thesame is now being remodelled reconstructed andredeveloped for the benefit of the existing slum dwellers whowere originally using the old toilet block. The affidavit dated19.01.201 filed by the Junior Engineerof theCorporation on behalf of Defendant No.1 Corporation exhibitsthe aforesaid facts. For the purpose of reference paragraphNo. 7 of the said affidavit which is relevant is extracted asunder: "7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions which are withoutprejudice to another the true facts pertaining to the present case are asfollows :(a) I say and submit that the plaintiff herein has filed the presentsuit praying therein that this Hon ble Court be pleased to granttemporary order and injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 itsofficers servants agents and person or persons claiming throughthem from carrying out any construction activities of public toilet inthe suit premises shown in red colour in the lay out plan on plotbearing C.T.S.No.418 being Exhibit "E" and further prayed that theDefendant No.1. To stay its hands and remove the partly carriedout construction activity at the suit plot of land bearing C.T.S.No.418 red portion shown in the lay out plan.1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.doc(b) I say and submit that oral complaints were received fromlocal Municipal Councilor of Beat 95 as he had received complaintletter from local organization naming Prabhati Nirmal SudharSamitee regarding bad condition of toilet block at Nirmalnagar.Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A is the copy ofcomplaint letter dt. 30.07.2019 from local organization namingPrabhati Nirmal Sudhar Samitee regarding bad condition oftoilet block at Nirmalnagar to the local Municipal Councilor ofBeat 95.(c) I say and submit that the accordingly the Defendant No.1had jointly inspected the site along with Local Councilor and localresidents from Nirmalnagar and Deepakwadi then it was observedthat the existing toilet block which had name board of MHADAAuthority stating that the said toilet is constructed through MLAfund of Hon ble MLA Shri. PrakashSawant in the year 2010 11 WC pans are in broken condition GI Doors bottoms corrugatedand damaged vent pipes got damaged at many places of said toiletblock overall it was in bad condition. Hereto annexed and markedas Exhibit B is the copy of photographs.(d) I say and submit that accordingly these Defendants hadcarried out survey at Deepakwadi by appointed CBO naming PrathaSamajik Sanstha which had reported that the total 57 numbers toiletseats were required as per the present population in that locality i.e.total 788 nos. of ladies and 873 nos of gents. Therefore theseDefendants had prepared estimate for planning designing andconstruction of RCC Community toilet block under LOT 11R inwhich it is proposed to reconstruct the above mentioned toilet inG+2 RCC structure having total nos. of 67 seats against the existing40 seats as per surveyed by appointed CBO. Hereto annexed andmarked as Exhibit C is the copy of survey conducted by CBO.(e) I say and submit that thereafter the Assistant Engineer(Maintenance Department) H East ward had submitted the saidproposal tot he Competent Authority for administrative sanction andsame was obtained u no. DMC Z III 8214 dated 19 03 2020.Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D is the copy ofsanction u no. DMC Z III 8214 dated 19 03 2020.(f) I say and submit that after obtaining administrative sanctionfrom Competent Authority the Defendant No.3 had issued workorder having P.O. no. 4100061615 dated 14.07.2020 to theappointed contractor M s API Civilcon Pvt Ltd for the construction ofRCC Community toilet block under LOT 11R at Nirmal Nagar inBeat 95 H East ward. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit Eis the copy of work order having P.O.no. 4100061615 dated14.07.2020 to the appointed contractor M s API Civilcon Pvt Ltdfor the construction of RCC Community toilet block under LOT11R at Nirmal Nagar in Beat 95 H East ward.(g) I say and submit that after the demolition of old toilets the1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docreconstruction work was started after monsoon that was from01.11.2020. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit F is thecopy of photographs of reconstruction of toilet work.(h) I say and submit that the Defendant No.1 received letterfrom Defendant No.2 i.e. MHADA dt. 09.12.2020 stating that theongoing toilet construction work is on vacant MHADA land andinformed to stop the work. Hereto annexed and marked asExhibit G is the copy of letter from Defendant No.2 i.e. MHADAto Defendant No.1 MCGM.(i) I say and submit that however the Defendant No.1 i.e.MCGM replied to Defendant No.2 i.e. MHADA on 21.12.2020 statingthat the construction work of toilet block is going on by demolishingexisting old toilet block and also as there are directions fromSecretary of Urban Development Department stating that No NOCshould be required from land holding authorities . Hereto annexedand marked as Exhibit H is the copy of the Defendant No.1 i.e.MCGM replied to Defendant No.2 i.e. MHADA on 21.12.2020.(j) I say and submit that the work of LOT 11R is under CentralGovernments SWACHHA BHARAT ABHIYANN SCHEME.However as per the clarification received from Chief Secretary ofUrban Development Department regarding NOC Permissionsrequired by the Urban Local Bodies it clearly mentioned that landholding authorities do not have the authority to disallow constructionof latrines on their land and therefore no NOC should be requiredfrom land holding authorities such as Railways Ports CRZ Environment Customs NHAI Archaeology Forest etc. forconstruction of latrinesfor census structure notedin 2011 census. Hereto annex and marked as Exhibit I is thecopy of the letter from Chief Secretary of Urban DevelopmentDepartment to the Additional Municipal Commissioner dt.21.09.2015 along with Circular dated 04.06.2015.(k) I say that the above mentioned toilet at Nirmalnagar wastaken for construction of G+2toilet block is not on openland it has being constructed by demolishing existing old 40 seatedtoilet block under same scheme. I say and submit that theDefendant No.3 reconstructing toilets block as per letter received toteh Defendant No.1 from Chief Secretary of Urban LandDevelopment Department under the scheme of the CentralGovernments SWACHHA BHARAT ABHIYANN. I say and submitthat the said construction of toilets is in the larger public interesttherefore the Plaintiff as well as Defendant No.2 cannot obstruct theconstruction of toilet blocks as it is in the interest of residents of thatlocality."8.3. From the above it is discernible that theCorporation has not encroached upon C.T.S. NO. 418 as a1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docrank encroacher to construct the toilet block and there is ahistory to the construction of the new toilet block whichcannot be lost sight of. Under the Brihanmumbai MahanagarPalika Swachha Bharat Abhiyaan Scheme it is contemplatedthat toilet block should be constructed in various slums ofMumbai through the concerned ward office and accordingly after following the due process of law the same has beendone. The total number of residents who would be using theredeveloped public toilet block to be constructed by theCorporation would be as follows: "Total House : 420Total Adults: 1461Female 696Male 765Total of above 10 yrs.Boys 33Girls 40Total of below 10 yrs.Boys 75Girls 52Total Public : 1661"8.4. A budget of Rs. 2 09 61 500 has been sanctionedfor this work and technically verified by the ExecutiveEngineer H East Ward and the work order has been given.Apart from the aforesaid issues it is important to understandthe need and necessity of the hour. What is significant tonote is the fact that the new toilet block will be coming up onthe same place where the old existing toilet block wasstanding. The Plaintiff had never objected to the old existing1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.doctoilet block which was constructed in the year 2010 11 anddetails of the same is placed on record and it is only now thatthe Plaintiff has sought to object on the ground of title andentitlement to C.T.S. No. 418. Not a single documentevidencing title or entitlement of the Plaintiff has beenplaced before the Court to support the impugned orderthough it has been admitted that Defendant No. 2 MHADA isthe owner of C.T.S. NO. 418. 8.5.The primary objective of construction of toiletblock is required to be considered. The State of Maharashtraunder the Swachha Bharat Missionhas maintainedthat the scheme is implemented with the objective ofensuring open defecation free cities and scientific collectionand processing of solid waste. The guidelines of SwachhaBharat MissionScheme of the Governmentenvisages that beneficiary households will be targetedirrespective of whether they lived in authorized unauthorized colonies of notified non notified slums underSBMscheme. When the Plaintiff does not have titleto C.T.S. No. 418 merely on the basis of the lay out it cannotclaim entitlement to the land where the old toilet blockexisted which does not belong to the Plaintiff. The old toiletblock and the land beneath it never belonged to the Plaintiff1 on 18 05 2021 on 22 03 civil ao st 9596 21 & ia st 9597 21.docFederation and was on an open portion space of C.T.S. No.418 with a definitive purpose and what has been done now isto redevelop and reconstruct the original dilapidated toiletblock at the same place. Therefore the Plaintiff cannot claimentitlement to the land beneath the original toilet block orthe area of the original toilet block or the structure of theoriginal toilet block. The case of the Plaintiff therefore fails. 9. In view of the above discussion and findings theimpugned order dated 09.03.2021 needs to be interferedwith and is quashed and set aside. The Appeal from Order(St) No. 95921 stands allowed with no order as tocost.10. In view of the Appeal from Order being allowed no orders are required to be passed in Interim Application(st) No. 95921. The same stands disposed of. 1 

Summary: The guidelines of Swachha Bharat Mission (Urban) Scheme of the Government envisages that beneficiary households will be targeted irrespective of whether they lived in authorized / unauthorized colonies of notified / non-notified slums under SBM (Urban) scheme. A single-judge bench of Milind Jadhav J., while adjudicating the matter Municipal Corporation of Mumbai v. Nirmal Nagar Co-op Housing Society; [APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 9596 OF 2021]; dealt with the issue of responsibility of Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff is a federation of several cooperative housing societies. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that the Corporation was redeveloping and reconstructing an already existing dilapidated toilet block standing on an open portion / space. This is the factual position and the Plaintiff has suppressed the same while approaching the trial court. He submitted that the original toilet block having 40 toilet seats was in a very bad condition and practically unusable pursuant to which several complaints were received. The WC pans were in broken condition; bottoms of the doors were corrugated and damaged completely; vent pipes were damaged at many places and the overall condition was filthy and bad. The photographs of the original toilet block which are part of the paper book were also referred to and attention of the Court was drawn thereto. The same has not been denied by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff which is material. Further, he stated that the toilet block reconstruction is being done under the Central Government’s Swachha Bharat Abhiyaan Scheme. He submitted that construction of latrines did not require permission of the local bodies in as much as the land holding authorities did not have the authority to disallow construction of latrines under the Swachha Bharat Mission (Urban) for censused. In any event, it was submitted that reconstruction of the toilet block was in place of the old toilet block and not a new construction; it was in the larger public interest and would serve the population of the slum areas of Deepakwadi and Nirmalnagar who were using the earlier toilet block and who would now be benefited by the new toilet block structure; it was in the interest of residents of the locality and in absence of a clear right, title and interest, the Plaintiff Federation could not oppose the same.