[Desealing of Properties] Supreme Court To Take Up Applications In Batches After The Amicus Curiae Categorises The Same; To Also List the Review Petition
On Thursday, the Supreme Court accepted the suggestion of the Amicus Curiae to take up the array of applications pertaining to desealing of properties, filed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, for hearing, in batches as categorised by them. Looking at the volume of applications before the Apex Court, the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai sought suggestions from...
On Thursday, the Supreme Court accepted the suggestion of the Amicus Curiae to take up the array of applications pertaining to desealing of properties, filed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, for hearing, in batches as categorised by them.
Looking at the volume of applications before the Apex Court, the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai sought suggestions from the Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocates, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. S Guru Krishna Kumar and Ms. Anitha Shenoy regarding the manner in which the same can be disposed of by the Bench.
In 2006, the Apex Court constituted the Monitoring Committee, which was empowered to address the issue of use of residential premises for commercial purposes. It was entitled to inspect premises in which illegal constructions had been made. The Special Task Force, which was constituted by the Court in 2018 was authorised to remove encroachments on public roads, public streets etc., while the Monitoring Committee was authorised to suggest areas where immediate action was required by the Force. In 2020, the Court observed that going beyond its mandate, the Monitoring Committee had sealed properties. In view of the same, the Court ordered de-sealing of residential units in Delhi which had been sealed by the Court-appointed Monitoring Committee.
Mr Rao pointed out that the plea seeking the review of the 2020 judgment of the Supreme Court, whereby it was held that the Monitoring Committee did not have the authority to seal residential premises on private land, particularly when they were not being used for commercial purpose, was pending. He was of the opinion that if the review petition is decided then the batch of applications filed pursuant to the said judgment can be taken care of.
"There is a review petition, In view of your Lordship's judgment in 2020, they say that the sealing has been bad, de-seal them. If your lordship decide that issue then. Whether the Monitoring Committee had the power to direct sealing etc. Then all these I.A. would stand decided."
Justice Rao enquiry, "Which is the order which says ceiling is not permissible? Is it the order by which Report No. 149 was quashed."
Mr. Rao responded in the affirmative. He further pointed out that if the issue urged in the review pertaining to the power of the monitoring committee to seal properties is decided, 40 to 50 applications will stand disposed of.
"They said that it is not within that, they are agricultural lands etc. If that issue is decided, the power of the monitoring committee and whether the court was right in that judgment. Some of the 40-50 I.A.s filled consequent to that judgment they will stand disposed of."
The Bench agreed to decide the review and stated it would inform the CJI to constitute a Special Bench in this regard.
"Ok, we will have a Bench constituted. We will talk to the CJI."
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar proposed to categorise the desealing matter and beseeched the Bench to thereafter take up the matter category wise.
"We will categorise all the I.A.s and place it before court and the court can take a call on how to deal with it."
Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the review petition can be decided in chambers.
Justice Rao stated, "We have been told that this has to be listed in Court."
Mr. Rao clarified that there was no written order to that effect. However, a letter was circulated by him that the review petition be taken up along with the reports filed by the Monitoring Committee. He was later informed that it was orally directed to be taken up and heard in open court.
"There is no written order. This was listed in chambers. Then the monitoring committee submitted a report. We circulated a letter saying that these reviews should be taken up along with those reports. Then we were informed that direction was such that it would be taken up and heard in open court. There is no written order."
Considering that Mr. Rao was not certain about the direction regarding hearing of the review petition, the Bench noted that it would find out from the office and accordingly take a call.
"We will find out from the office or otherwise we will take it up and see whether it has to be taken up in court…If in open court we will have a special bench constituted."
Justice Rao asked the Amicus Curiae to submit the list categorising the applications in a week or two.
"You try to prepare that list and give it to us in a week or two. We will list those batches…"
As the Amicus sought some more time, Justice Rao asked him to complete it in two weeks' time.
"Do it in two weeks…After you prepare that list…we will list batch wise or category wise."
[Case Title: MC Mehta v. Union of India]