- (1.) We have heard Shri V. M. Tarkunde for the petitioners and,Shri K. K. Singhvi for the respondents. Shri Tarkunde disputes the correct-; ness of the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court on a number of grounds, and Shri Singhvi vehemently supports that judgment. We consider it unnecessary to enter into the merits of the controversy, because we think that instead of considering the grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment and prolonging a litigation which has already passed through several stages, before the statutory authorities, the High Court and earlier before this Court, it is desirable to bring it to a final conclusion by an order which, we think, will comprehensively deal with the situation and produce an equitable solution. We believe that the entire controversy can be disposed of by the following order.
(2.) On the one side, it cannot be disputed, the structures raised on the parcel of land are unauthorised, and have been developed, maintained and occupied notwithstanding that the owners and the occupants have been duly notified by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay that they are illegal and cannot be allowed to continue. On the other side, we are impressed by the claim that as many as 139 industrial units have been installed and have been functioning for sometime, employing a labour force of about 10,000 workmen regularly. It is said that a few crores of rupees have been invested in bringing this industrial estate into existence. The problem before us has many facets. Among them is the circumstance that the immediate demolition of these structures will result in the destruction of an operating sector of industrial production. There is the further circumstance that with the immediate stoppage of production some thousands of workmen will be suddenly put out of employment leading to a grave human situation. Besides, in some cases valuable machinery installed in the sheds will be endangered. It is obvious from all this that the immediate demolition of the structures will work great hardship. And all this to no positive benefit to anyone, because admittedly no action is being taken at the moment by the Municipal Corporation or other statutory authority for applying the land to any other purpose. In the particular circumstances of this case, we think that a period of time should be allowed to enable the petitioners to make arrangements for-closing down their activities, moving out from the structures and vacating the land occupied by them. At the same time it is necessary to ensure that this controversy which, as we have observed earlier, has occupied the parties in a fiercely contested litigation for some years, should be brought to a final end.
(3.) Accordingly, we hereby order that the respondents be restrained from taking further demolition proceedings for a period of two years from today provided the petitioners, who we are told include all the occupants of the structures standing on the land, furnish a written undertaking to this Court within four weeks from today to the following effect : (a) That the petitioners will within the said period of two years from today definitely vacate the land together with all machinery and other assets belonging to them, and they will not obstruct or hinder the Municipal Corporation in entering upon the land on the expiry of the said period of two years and demolishing any structures still standing thereon at that time. The Municipal Corporation will be entitled to enter upon the land and to effect such demolition without any further notice to the petitioners. (b) That the petitioners will raise no further structures or make extensions to existing structures on the land during the said period of two years. (c) That the petitioners will not hand over possession of the structures and the land to any person or persons without the prior orders of this Court.;