Law Web: Whether legal heirs of a government servant can avoid their eviction from official residence saying that said accommodation is not dilapidated?

Moreover, petitioners claim their

occupation over the tenements from the Government,

pursuant to they or their predecessors to be in

Government service. The tenement was a facility

provided to them in service for accommodation. The

petitioners or their predecessors are claiming

their occupation over the tenements from the

Government. They do not have any right to deny the

title of the Government from whom they were

inducted in possession nor any other entity or a

persons is claiming a better title than the

Government. It is futile to enter into the debate

in this regard. The person who is inducted in

possession cannot deny the title of a person who

has inducted him in occupation, unless the person

inducted in occupation claims a better title. It

is also to be noted that, as far as the issue of

ownership of the Government is concerned the same

has been set to rest in the earlier judgments.

There is no reason to again enter into the

rigmarole of the ownership right. Nonetheless,

petitioners are not claiming ownership rights nor

they can claim ownership over the tenement in their

occupation. In light of the above, it is not open

for the petitioners to deny the ownership right of

the Government.

24. The petitioners have also emphasised much

upon the legality of public notice under Section

264 and 265-A of the Act, 1949. The Division Bench

of this Court in case of Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and

another judgment in case of Mr. Jaswant Shivlal

Chandarana and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

(supra) has laid down the guidelines of the manner

in which the structural audit has to be based. In

the present case, petitioners do not have any right

to retain the occupation of the tenements. The

person who does not get a right to occupy and

remain in possession of a tenement does not have

locus to assail the impugned notices on the ground

that the procedure and the test required as per the

guidelines of the Division Bench of this Court in

case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs.

State of Maharashtra (supra) are not performed. The

Government and Corporation have also placed on

record reports issued by the Department of the

Applied Mechanics, Government Engineering College,

Aurangabad. We may not enter into the said

aspects, as in our opinion petitioners would not

have any legal right to agitate against the same.

The petitioners do not have legal right to continue

occupying tenements having suffered earlier

adjudication.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.12527 OF 2021

Dinker s/o Bhaburao Lokhande Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

Dated : 20.01.2022.

(Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

1. The present petition is filed with

multifarious prayers. The petitioners assail the

judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 in Writ

Petition No.402/1985 with connected writ petitions

and the judgment and order dated 12.07.2011 passed

in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 on the ground that

same were obtained by fraud. The petitioners also

assail public eviction notice dated 31.10.2021

issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works

Department and Additional Commissioner and

designated officer of the Municipal Corporation

purportedly under Section 264 and 265-A of the

Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1949’). The

petitioners also seek directions against

respondents to acquire the land by following due

procedure. They rely on the judgment of the Civil

Court in RCS No.350/2020 dated 10.09.2004. The

petitioners seek directions against respondents to

transfer the ownership of the tenements occupied by

petitioners relying upon the Government Resolution

dated 22.01.1964 and 05.04.1979.

2. The petitioners herein or their

predecessors/ancestors were the employees of the

Government. They were allotted the tenements by

the Government for occupying them during their

service tenure at Aurangabad. The eviction

proceedings were initiated against these persons.

In the year 1985 and 1987, various Writ Petitions

were filed by these writ petitioners and their

predecessors challenging the eviction notices and

proceedings. The Division Bench of this Court

under common judgment dated 22.11.1999 dismissed

writ petitions filed by these persons bearing Writ

Petition Nos.402/1985, 403/1985, 404/1985, 441/1985

and 494/1987 holding that, these persons are in

illegal occupation of the respective tenements.

They should vacate the tenements, so that it can be

re-allotted to the Government servants posted at

Auranagabad. The said judgment of this Court is

upheld by the Apex Court. The Special Leave

Petition filed against the said judgment is

dismissed. That some of these persons again filed

Writ Petition bearing No.5515/2008 seeking

implementation of Government Resolution dated

22.01.1964 and to regularize the 40 Double Room

Tenements and 10 Triple Room Tenements. The

Division Bench of this Court under judgment and

order dated 12.07.2011 dismissed the writ petition

on two counts (i) suppression of material facts and

(ii) it is concluded fact that, tenements are not

owned by the Housing Board, but are owned by the

State of Maharashtra and is allotted to petitioners

therein as Government employees. It was further

observed that, petitioners are clinging to the

quarters allotted to them though all of them are

superannuated on their own admission. The Court

deprecated their attitude. Subsequently, some

attempts were made for eviction. The said eviction

proceedings could not be taken up to its logical

end either because of the intervention of the

Hon’ble Ministers or the bureaucrats. Now,

respondents have again taken up the task of

evicting these persons. Notices are also issued

purportedly under Section 264 and 265-A of the Act,

1949 by the Public Works Department and Municipal

Corporation.

3. Ms. Talekar, learned counsel for

petitioners strenuously submits that, the judgments

delivered by this Court in Writ Petition

No.402/1985 with connected writ petitions dated

22.11.1999 and judgment and order dated 19.04.2011

in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 are on the basis of

fraud played by respondents-Authorities upon the

Court. The two documents regarding transfer of

land were submitted across the bar at the time of

the final hearing. The certified copies of these

documents demanded by the petitioners are denied

under Right to Information on the ground of

originals not being available. The Commissioner in

his communication dated 17.08.1987 has clearly

stated that, no documents of ownership are

available in the record. This would substantiate

that, the land was a private land. No land

acquisition proceedings were initiated. Still the

State Government represented before this Court in

the earlier proceedings, that the land is owned by

the Public Works Department and therefore, the

Government had every authority to evict the

tenements. The learned counsel submits that, the

judgment obtained by fraud is null and void, ab

initio and has no binding effect. The learned

counsel to substantiate the said contentions relies

upon the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of A.

V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of A. P. and

Others reported in 2007 (4) SCC 221.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners

submits that, under Government Resolution dated

22.01.1964 several labour colony tenements in the

State were transferred to the respective Housing

Boards and declaration under Section 54(A)(2) of

the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 was made. A

mention is also made of Aurangabad Labour Colony.

The learned counsel submits that, Official Gazette

dated 27.05.1971 evidences initiation of land

acquisition proceedings under Section 4 and 6 of

the Land Acquisition Act, however no Award is

passed in respect of the Labour Colony, Aurangabad.

Heavy reliance is placed by Ms. Talekar, learned

counsel on Government Resolution dated 05.04.1979

to submit that, ownership of tenements in such

labour colonies are to be transferred to occupants

on the payment of nominal purchase price.

According to the learned counsel, the policy was

earlier not made applicable to Labour Colony at

Aurangabad since it was used as rental premises by

the Government for housing the government servants.

Except Aurangabad Labour Colony, the tenements in

such Labour Colonies at other places in the State

of Maharashtra were transferred to the allottees.

The petitioners are discriminated on the ground

that, the tenements are owned by the Government and

not by the Housing Board. No document exists

evidencing the ownership of the State. The learned

counsel submits that, the eviction proceedings were

kept in abeyance by the order of the Hon’ble

Guardian Minister on 02.08.2000. Earlier thereto,

the Secretary, Public Works Department directed

stay of the eviction proceedings of the occupants

at Labour Colony Aurangabad under communication

dated 04.12.1999. From time to time, the stay was

granted to the eviction proceedings and the same is

evident from the communication between the District

Collector, Aurangabad and Superintending Engineer.

The learned counsel also relies upon the

communication dated 19.09.2007 by the Executive

Engineer, Public Works Department to Superintending

Engineer, stating that, out of 250 tenements, 200

tenements were purchased by the Public Works

Department, whereas 50 tenements were transferred

to MHADA, but no action is taken by MHADA. The

learned counsel relies upon the Circular dated

23.04.2008 to submit that, the Government servants

residing in quarters for more than 20 years shall

on payment of carpet rate be transferred ownership

of the quarter in their names. The learned counsel

relied on the affidavit filed by the Government and

MHADA in Writ Petition No.5515/2008 to submit that,

200 tenements were transferred to Public Works

Department and 50 tenements to MHADA, but transfer

to MHADA did not take place. The learned counsel

submits that, land belongs to the private person.

The said person has exercised his civil right over

the same and obtained perpetual injunction against

the Government from creating third party interest

or changing the nature of the property under order

dated 23.07.2009 in RCS No.350/2000. The said

order has become final. In view of that, the

Government or any of its official have no right to

parade themselves as the owners. More

particularly, without they ever having passed an

Award for acquisition of the said land any attempt

to demolish the building and to develop the said

land by putting to some other use is illegal. The

learned counsel submits that, under the Government

Resolution dated 12.01.1989 the Government granted

parity to the government servants at Abudayanagar,

Kala Chowki (Mumbai), but not to the residents of

the Labour Colony Aurangabad. The same is

improper.

5. The learned counsel submits that,

petitioners have fresh cause of action to file writ

petition, as notices are issued and petitioners

challenged the impugned notice dated 30.10.2021

issued under Section 264 and 265-A of the Act, 1949

giving rise to a fresh cause of action, so also

earlier judgments are assailed. The learned

counsel submits that, some photo copies are placed

on record by the Government and the Public Works

Department to suggest that, the transfer of

tenements have taken place in favour of the

Government. The stray entries and the photo copies

of stray entries at the best reveal the price of

the transaction, but does not further provide

information regarding the transfer transaction. The

non-existence of any documents of transfer is

evident from the communication dated 17.08.1987

made by the Commissioner, Aurangabad to Secretary,

Public Works Department. Under Right to

Information also the certified copies of the

documents pertaining to the purchase transactions

done by Public Works Department were not supplied

because the original documents were not available.

All these aspects clearly depict that, the

Government is not the owner of the property inter

alia has no right to evict the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for petitioners

further submits that, the impugned notices issued

for eviction on the ground that the structures are

in dilapidated condition suffer from legal

infirmities and the same does not have any binding

effect. The learned counsel relies upon the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs.

State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 6 Bombay CR

860 and another judgment in case of Mr. Jaswant

Shivlal Chandarana and Anr. Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No.9757/2013

with connected writ petitions dated July 18, 2017.

The learned counsel submits that, the Division

Bench of this Court in the said judgments has laid

down the policy and guidelines for conducting

structural audit. The said judgment is squarely

applicable to the facts of the present case. The

policy and guidelines under the said judgment are

applicable to the owner as well as the occupants.

According to the said judgment the Corporation has

to act in accordance with law and the Corporation

before classifying a building under category C-1,

is required to conduct its own independent

inspection and assessment with the help of the

Engineers of their Department and carry out a

survey of such buildings. The report pursuant to

the Structural Audit shall be taken into account.

If the owners and/or the occupants bring

conflicting reports on the status of the building,

the Corporation is required to refer the matter to

Technical Advisory Committee. In the present case,

the petitioners have placed on record the

structural audit report of the Government approved

registered Structural Engineer/Auditor showing

that, the structures are perfectly habitable and

some structures only require minor repairs.

7. The learned counsel submits that, the

guidelines laid down in the said judgment have been

flouted by the respondents. No specific test like

ultrasonic pulse velocity test, rebound hammer

test, half cell potential test, carbonation depth

test, core test, chemical analysis, cement

aggregate ratio are conducted before issuing the

notices. More over, the rights of the occupants

are not affected by the demolition carried out by

the Corporation of dilapidated building. Such

tenements or occupiers would still be entitled to

occupy the premises after reconstruction of

building. The officers of the respondents, even

did not enter into the premises and have given the

reports without even inspecting it from inside. In

view of that, the said notices are illegal.

8. Ms. Talekar, learned counsel submits that,

no eviction by force can be sustainable in law. It

is necessary as per the Act, 1949 to give 30 days

personal notice. The respondents-Authorities are

merely paving the way to execute their grand

project at the cost of livelihood of thousands.

The same is evident from the proposals, letters and

Government Resolutions. The acts of respondents

are illegal and deserve to the quashed and set

aside.

9. Mr. Dhorde, learned senior Advocate and

special counsel for the State of Maharashtra

submits that, the earlier judgment delivered by

this Court operates as res-judicata. The filing of

a second writ petition is misconceived. The same

deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. The

senior counsel relies on the following judgments to

substantiate its submissions:

1. Beerbal Singh (Dead) Through Legal

Representative Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 675.

2. Kaushi Cooperative Building Society Vs. N.

Parvathamma and Others reported in (2017) 13 SCC

138.

3. Shiv Chander More and Others Vs. Leiutenant

Governor and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744.

10. The learned senior Advocate further

submits that, the filing of present writ petition

is an abuse of process of Court. The reliance is

placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case

of K.S.B Ali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

reported in (2018) 11 SCC 277. The learned senior

Advocate further submits that, it is duty of the

petitioners to disclose in its pleadings all the

material facts and to approach the Court with clean

hands. Failure to disclose all the material facts

amounts to suppression and this Court would not

entertain the writ petition on the said count. The

learned senior counsel relies on the judgment of

the Apex Court in a case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav

and Others Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wahg Education

Society and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531.

The learned senior counsel submits that,

petitioners did not disclose in their pleadings

that, the Nawab Yusufoddin Khan had filed Suit

bearing RCS No.566/2014 for injunction, restraining

the present respondents from evicting the occupants

from the tenements at Labour Colony. The said Suit

is unconditionally withdrawn. The withdrawal

amounts to dismissal. As the Suit is

unconditionally withdrawn, the same stands

dismissed. This fact ought to have been brought on

record properly by the petitioners. Even some of

the petitioners had filed Suit bearing RCS

No.795/2008 for perpetual and mandatory injunction.

The relief was sought that, the Defendants therein

i.e. present respondents be directed to allot and

declare the ownership of Suit property to the

Plaintiffs as in other Suits. The said Suit was

dismissed.

11. The learned senior Advocate submits that,

authoritative pronouncement has been made by this

Court upon the rights of the parties, in the

earlier Writ Petition bearing No.402/1985 with

connected writ petitions under judgment and order

dated 22.11.1999 and judgment and order dated

19.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.5515/2008. The

petitioners now cannot re-agitate the same issue.

It has been held by the Division Bench that the

State is the owner of the property. Even the

amount has been paid for the transfer. The

respondents have not suppressed any facts or played

fraud in the earlier proceedings before this Court.

The property is owned by the Government.

Maharashtra Housing Board does not claim the

ownership over the property. The learned senior

counsel submits that, petitioners have no right to

retain the occupation. As per the survey conducted

by the Government, majority of the occupants are

the private persons. The original allottees have

either illegally transferred the same to the

private persons. The list has been placed on

record alongwith the affidavit that barring few,

majority of the tenements are occupied by private

persons who were not the original allottes. The

original allottees have illegally transferred it.

12. The statement of the State that original

allottees have transferred tenements to the private

persons is denied by the petitioners.

13. The learned senior counsel further submits

that, tenements are constructed almost 70 years

back. There are 200 Single Room Tenements (SRT),

40 Double Room Tenements (DRT) and 10 Triple Room

Tenements (TRT), so also there are Type-I building

G+1 and Type-II building G+3, total 8 buildings

having 88 tenements. Total 338 tenements exist.

The original allottees were serving with the

Government of Maharashtra in various departments at

the relevant period. The allotment of the

tenements to the erstwhile Government employees was

purely for their service period and not

permanently. The allotment orders also clearly lay

down the terms and conditions. The terms of the

allotment were also clear that, in case of

transfer, the employee can retain the quarter for

one month only and on retirement he has to vacate

the quarter within two months. Letting out the

quarter to other persons is illegal. Each and

every person who was allotted the Government

quarters at Labour Colony Aurangabad had either

retired or deceased as on the date. Even as per

the pleadings of petitioners, only petitioner no.42

is in Government service as on the date. None of

the persons are in Government service. They are

not legally entitled to claim the reliefs. They

have no right to maintain the present petition.

14. It is further contended by the learned

senior Advocate that, the petitioners or their

ancestors were not the industrial workers and that

they were the employees of the Government of

Maharashtra, as such the Government Resolution

dated 22.01.1964 and 05.04.1979 are not applicable

to petitioners. All the tenements at Labour Colony

are purely service quarters made for temporary

residence of Government employees. They are not

meant for allotment to the lower income group under

the Group Housing Scheme. It is erroneous to

contend that one Mr. Nawab Yusufoddin Khan is owner

of the land. The petitioners were not Plaintiffs

in RCS No.350/2000 filed by him nor the tenements

constructed by Public Works Department were part of

the Suit bearing RCS No.350/2000 filed by Nawab

Yusufoddin Khan. The judgment in RCS No.350/2000

has been challenged by filing Appeal and Civil

Miscellaneous Application No.16/2020 and the same

is pending. The said decree has not attained

finality. More over, subsequently, Suit filed by

Nawab Yusufoddin Khan in RCS No.566/2014 by which

he claimed perpetual injunction against present

respondents (Defendants in the said Suit) from

evicting the occupants of 338 tenements has been

unconditionally withdrawn on 01.03.2017. The

withdrawal amounts to dismissal of the Suit.

15. According to the learned senior Advocate,

all the tenements are old tenements, constructed

almost 70 years back. The basement, slabs, walls,

lintels, plaster, concrete of all the structures

have deteriorated. The structural audit has been

conducted by the Government College of Engineering.

The Department of Applied Mechanics, Government

College of Engineering, Aurangabad personally

inspected all 338 tenements physically and

submitted the structural audit report alongwith

photographs of the tenements. They are placed on

record. As per the structural audit report, there

is corrosion of reinforcement in the said

tenements. The structures are found to be in

highly damaged condition and not fit for

accommodation. For the larger interest of the

life, safety of the residents also it is expedient

to pull down the dilapidated structures which are

tilted as on date. Fatalities my result if the

highly dilapidated tenements are not pulled down.

The impugned notices are rightly issued. The staff

of respondent no.6 has conducted door to door

survey of all the 338 tenements. Accordingly

survey report has been submitted in the office of

respondent no.6 reporting the details about the

persons actually residing in the 338 tenements.

From the survey report it is revealed that, private

persons who are not in service of the State of

Government are presently residing in the said

service quarters. It is also revealed that, the

petitioner nos.2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 19, 20, 26, 28,

30, 35, 36, 37, 44, 45, 51, 52, 58, 53, 64, 65, 66,

70, 73, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96,

102, 103, 107, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,

119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 130, 132, 134, 135,

136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147

are not residing in the said tenements. It has

further been observed in the survey conducted by

the office of respondent no.6 that, retired

Government employees and L.Rs of certain deceased

employees have illegally transferred the service

quarters at Labour Colony to unauthorized persons,

who were and are not in service of the State

Government. They are by way of sale on Bond papers

and by leasing out Government quarters. These

unauthorized encroachments are required to be

removed and the dilapidated structures demolished

in larger public interest.

16. The learned senior Advocate submits that,

the tenements are load bearing structures. There

are no RCC columns and beams in the said

structures. The structural audit team was given

access to all the tenements by the concerned

residents for the purpose of inspection. The team

has followed the methodology of visual observation

and also have conducted rebound hammer test and the

observations have been recorded which is clarified

in the report itself. It has been opined that, the

serviceability of all these buildings are seriously

affected. The structural inspection report

submitted by petitioners are totally inconsistent

and irrelevant. They cannot be considered.

According to the learned senior counsel,

petitioners are not legitimate owners nor the

legitimate occupiers of the tenements. They are

required to vacate the same. The petition deserves

to be dismissed.

17. The Regular Civil Suit No.295/2008 and

Regular Civil Appeal No.136/2014 filed by

petitioner nos.59 and 60 for similar relief has

been dismissed by the Civil Court under judgment

dated 10.04.2014 and the Appeal by the Ld. Ad-hoc

District Judge-1, Aurangabad under judgment dated

06.10.2021. The petitioner nos.59 and 60, though

had filed Civil Suit also filed present writ

petition.

18. Upon having considered the pleadings of

the parties and submissions advanced at the bar it

does not appear to be a matter of dispute that the

tenements at Labour Colony Aurangabad were allotted

to the Government servants during their continuance

of service at Aurangabad. The specific allotment

letters were issued to them. The terms and

conditions of allotment letters specifically

provide that, the allottee is required to vacate

the Government quarters on its transfer out of

Aurangabad, so also has to vacate it upon his

retirement. The quarters were basically of three

types i.e. Single Room Tenement (SRT), Double Room

Tenement (DRT) and Triple Room Tenement (TRT). It

is also not a matter of debate and petitioners also

claim that all these tenements were allotted to

them or their ancestors, as they were in Government

service. The allotment letters annexed by

petitioners also establishes the said fact.

19. It does not appear to be a matter of

dispute that, all these petitioners or their

predecessors, who were original allottees have

retired from Government service. The petitioners

herein and/or their predecessors were confronted

with the eviction notice in the year 1985. They

filed Writ Petition bearing No.402/1985, 403/1985,

404/1985, 441/1985 and 494/1987. This Court under

its judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 dismissed

the writ petitions by a detailed judgment. In the

said Writ Petitions present petitioners or their

predecessors claimed benefit of the Government

Resolution dated 05.04.1979 with a request to

transfer the Government tenements in their

occupation to them on ownership basis. In the said

writ petitions reliance was placed by petitioners

on the Resolution dated 09.02.1970 issued by the

Central Government and 05.04.1979 of the State

Government. The directions were sought to

implement the scheme as contemplated under the said

Government Resolutions. The Division Bench of this

Court while dismissing the writ petition under

judgment dated 22.11.1999 observed that, the

petitioners during the pendency of the petition

resorted to illegal construction extending the

plinth area of the respective tenements. The

petitioners were allotted tenements upon their

application and/or furnishing undertaking to vacate

premises on transfer from Aurangabad and/or

superannuation. The Court further held that,

tenements were purchased by the then Government of

Bombay by remitting an amount of Rs.5,59,7000/- and

the documents in support of the transfer entry to

this effect i.e. change of ownership have also been

brought on record and it is evident that the

Government has been paying Municipal taxes of these

tenements right from 1960 onwards. Even the

repairs and maintenance of these tenements is done

by the Government. The Court held that, the

tenements were not the property of the erstwhile

Hyderabad Housing Board and they were at no point

of time transferred to the Housing Board of the

then Bombay State. The Court further held that,

Resolution dated 05.04.1979 was applicable only to

the industrial workers and the persons from the

weaker sections of the society and was applicable

in respect of the tenements built by the Housing

Board and not by the State Government. The said

scheme under Government Resolution dated 05.04.1979

is not applicable to the tenements in the Labour

Colony at Aurangabad. Other properties of Labour

Colonies transferred such as at Abudayanagar, Kala

Chowki (Mumbai) was not the property of Government.

They were the tenements taken up by the Government

on the rental basis from the Housing Board. The

Court negatived the contentions of petitioners

therein holding that, the subject tenements are

earmarked as a common pool Government servants

quarters, petitioners have no vested right to seek

relief by invoking the powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

20. Apart from the above, another writ

petition came to be filed by some of the

petitioners or their predecessors bearing Writ

Petition No.5515/2008 seeking similar reliefs. The

said Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of

suppression of material facts, so also on the

ground that it is concluded fact that the tenements

are not owned by the Housing Board, but owned by

the State of Maharashtra allotted to petitioners as

Government employees and that the Government

Resolution dated 22.01.1964 would not be

applicable. The attitude of the petitioners was

deprecated.

21. It has been conclusively established in

the writ petitions filed earlier, that the Housing

Board is not the owner of the property. The

Government has paid an amount of Rs.5,59,700/- for

the transfer of the ownership of the tenements.

The Maharashtra Housing Board also does not claim

ownership rights over the said tenements. As such,

it is futile on the part of petitioners to agitate

and re-agitate the same issue. Only because

original documents are not available now would not

be sufficient to establish that, fraud was played

by the State in the earlier proceedings. The

affidavit filed by the State Government in Writ

Petition No.5515/2008 also clarifies that the

tenements at Aurangabad were not handed over to the

Maharashtra Housing Board. The Maharashtra Housing

Board on enactment of MHADA Act, 1976 came to be

dissolved and Maharashtra Housing and Area

Development Authority (MHADA) is formed and the

tenements which were handed over to the Maharashtra

Housing Board became the estate of the MHADA. The

tenements which became estate of MHADA became

subject to the application of MHADA Act, 1976. The

Government of India decided to sale these tenements

constructed for industrial workers and for low

income groups and which were allotted on rental

basis by hire purchase or out right sale.

This decision was taken in the year 1978. As per

the directions of the Government of India, the

State of Maharashtra decided to convert the

tenements on rental basis to hire purchase or out

right sale basis. The Resolution to that effect

was passed on 05.04.1979. MHADA implemented the

Government Resolution and converted the tenements

in the said Labour Colonies from rental to hire

purchase or out right sale. The tenements at

Aurangabad were not handed over to housing board

and the tenements are in possession of Public Works

Department and they are used as service quarters.

MHADA has also filed affidavit-in-reply in the Writ

Petition No.5515/2008 thereby clarifying that, the

tenements in Labour Colony, Aurangabad are

constructed by the then Hyderabad Government and

handed over to the Government of Maharashtra on

reorganization of States. The tenements at MHADA

were not handed over. The 50 tenements were also

not handed over to MHADA as is clarified in the

affidavit. It is also specifically stated in the

affidavit that, the 200 tenements were also

purchased by the Government. The MHADA at no point

of time claimed its right over the tenements at

Labour Colony Aurangabad.

22. All these aspects would establish that,

MHADA at no material point of time claimed its

right over the tenements at Labour Colony

Aurangabad and that the Government continued to own

the tenements. We do not find an element of fraud

on the part of the respondents/State in earlier

proceedings viz. Writ Petition No.402/1985 with

connected writ petitions decided under judgment

22.11.1999 and Writ Petition No.5515/2008 dated

12.07.2011. Inter alia it cannot be said that

these judgments are as a result of fraud.

23. Moreover, petitioners claim their