Bombay High Court: Ex-Municipal Employees Must Vacate Public Properties

Hey folks! So, here's the scoop on a recent court drama involving some ex-employees of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). It’s all about housing, retirement, and some legal back-and-forth. Let’s break it down!

The Main Players

This case involves several people, like Satish Mahadeo Rupwate and others, who are heirs of former MCGM employees. They were living in staff quarters at Vikhroli, Mumbai, and didn’t move out after retirement. The MCGM wanted them out, and things got legal real quick.

The Backstory

The properties were originally given to these employees as part of their job. They were supposed to leave once they retired. But guess what? They didn’t! Instead, they argued that the MCGM had promised to turn these temporary homes into permanent ones. They even pointed to a 1989 notice that hinted at such a possibility.

What Happened in Court?

1. Initial Notices: Back in 2006-2007, the MCGM had already asked Satish Mahadeo Rupwate and the others to leave. They claimed they were promised permanent housing.

2. Court’s Past Decision: In 2017, the court had already decided against Satish Mahadeo Rupwate and his fellow petitioners, saying they had no right to stay. They were given a chance to leave voluntarily and get their withheld retirement benefits.

3. Appeal and Arguments: Satish Mahadeo Rupwate and the other petitioners appealed, bringing up new evidence and arguing about a potential ownership conversion. They even referred to a part of the law hoping to protect their stay.

4. Final Judgment: Justice Gauri Godse, in a detailed decision, dismissed the petitions. The court emphasized that these properties are public assets and must be vacated. The judge also noted that no valid agreement existed to turn these homes into permanent residences.

Key Quotes from the Judgment

• “The occupancy of the ex-employees would not create any right, title, or interest in the municipal property, which is a public property.”
• “There is no question of applying Section 53-A of the TP Act to protect the possession of these petitioners.”

What’s Next?

The court has made it clear: Satish Mahadeo Rupwate and the other petitioners need to leave. The MCGM can now take action to reclaim these properties. It’s a strong reminder that public properties have specific rules, and bending them isn’t easy.

So, that’s the latest on this housing saga. It’s a classic case of promises, legal battles, and the importance of sticking to agreements.