Commissioner, Solapur Municipal ... vs P.U. Chakote And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1056 Bom

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Officer, Maharashtra Slum Tribunal, Bombay dated 21-11-1989 in Appeal No. 24 of 1987. The property in question is T.P. No. P.P. No. 87-8-71/2 and 3 Solapur. This property was declared as a slum area along with other properties pursuant to the declaration dated 12-5-1987 and as published in Government publication on 20-8-1987. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged that declaration insofar as it pertains to the above said property. The challenge to that declaration was negatived by the Tribunal on all other counts except that principles of natural justice were not observed qua the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. Inasmuch as the printed notice served upon them did not indicate the number of huts, population and particular requirement in the property. This is the only reason which has weighed with the Tribunal to allow the appeal in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners Corporation has challenged the decision of the Tribunal before this Court by way of the present writ petition. According to the petitioners the basis on which the Tribunal has proceeded to answer the issue in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is totally inappropriate. Inasmuch as the show cause notice at the very outset indicated the fact that the subject lands are occupied by hutments without provision of roads, drainage, drinking water taps, WCs etc. which are essential services and resulting in unhygienic, insanitary and squalid condition in that area which would necessitate Writ Petition No. 760 of 1990 decided on 4-10-2002. (Bombay) declaring the subject lands as slum area. It is further contended that the Tribunal having rejected the contention of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the factum of non-service of initial notice by observing that they had notice by virtue of publication made by the authorities, could not have held that any infraction of natural justice was caused due to the printed notice served on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being defective, so as to render the declaration of the land as slum area to be vitiated. Although the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been served, none appears. Mr. Mandlik for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whereas Mr. Nitin Jamdar appears for respondent No. 6. Both the counsel appearing for the said respondents are supporting the grievance made by the petitioners in the present writ petition and would contend that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be and ought not to be sustained.

2. Having considered the submissions and after going through the relevant records I have no hesitation in observing that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in taking the view that there has been breach of principles of natural justice or prejudice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This is so because the Tribunal had rejected the plea of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they had no initial notice before the declaration; because it is established in record that sufficient public notice was given by way of publication in the local newspaper on more than one occasion. In para 11 of its decision, the Tribunal has adverted to those materials and held that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent No. 1 and 2 herein. Be that as it may, it was not the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that information given in the said publications issued from time to time by the authorities lacked the necessary information. In the circumstances, the Tribunal having rejected that plea of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, could not have set aside the declaration in respect of the suit lands on the premise that printed notice served on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was inappropriate and caused prejudice to them. The basis on which the Tribunal has proceeded to answer the issue is manifestly wrong. Because the show cause notice at the outset indicates the drawbacks on the basis of which the subject land was proposed to be declared as a slum area. Besides, it is rightly contended on behalf of the petitioners that at no stage the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made any grievance about insufficiency of particulars in the printed notice thereby causing them any prejudice or deprived them on making effective representation. On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed detailed written objection to the said show cause notice and at no stage made grievance in that behalf, in the circumstances, to my mind, the basis on which the Tribunal has held that the printed notice lacked necessary particulars which resulted in breach of natural justice, cannot be sustained; and, as a consequence of which, the conclusion returned by the Tribunal that the entire action is vitiated will have to be inevitably effaced as/even that cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the declaration issued on 12-5-1987 and as published in the Government Gazette on 20-8-1987 in respect of the suit lands declaring the same as a slum area is restored.

3. Accordingly writ petition succeeds in the above terms. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.