Bombay High Court
Ratna vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 2010
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, R. S. Dalvi
1
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 1999
Anil Gulabdas Shah )
R/232, Harish Villa, )
Juhu Church, Juhu ig )
Bombay-400 049 )
Now residing at 6-F, Dhan- )
Ratna,6th Floor, Bhardawadi, )
Andheri West, Bombay-58. ) ..PETITIONER
Versus
1.State of Maharashtra )
through Government Pleader )
office, Bombay High Court, )
Bombay-400 023. )
2.Slum Redevelopoment )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:38:32 :::
2
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Authority, Mahada Building, )
5th Floor, Bandra East, )
Bombay-50. )
3.Competent Authority, )
Mahada Building, 5th Floor, )
Bandra East, Bombay-50. )
4.Akruti City Ltd.,Akruti Trade)
Centre, MIDC, Road No.7,
ig )
Andheri East,Bombay-400 093)
5.Court Receiver, High Court, )
Bank of India Building, )
2nd Floor, M.G. Road, )
Mumbai-400 023. ) ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1113 OF 2000
1.Anil Gulabdas Shah )
2.Harish Gulabdas Shah )
3.Nilam P. Baxi )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:38:32 :::
3
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
4.Varsha M. Daru )
5.Smita S. Desai )
All having address at R/232, )
Harish Villa, Juhu, Bombay-400 049) ..PETITIONERS
Versus
1.State of Maharashtra )
2.Slum Re-Development Authroity )
MHADA Building, Bandra East,
ig )
Bombay-51. )
3.Competent Authority (ENRC) )
MHADA Building, Bandra East, )
Bombay-400 051. )
4.M/s.Akruti City Ltd., )
Mukhyadhyapak Bhuwan, 2nd Floor)
Sion West, Mumbai. ) ..RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.G.Shah, petitioner in person.
Mr. Jasbir Saluja, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 3 in both the petitions.
Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Counsel along with Mr. G.D. Utangale, Mr.
B.V. Phadnis i/b. Utangale & Co., for respondent No.2-SRA in both
the petitions.
Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel with Mr. M.P.S.Rao, Senior Counsel
i/by Naik Paranjpe & Co. for respondent no.4 in W.P. No. 974 of 1999.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:38:32 :::
4
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Mr. Sandeep Parekh a/w Mr. Ashok Paranjape and Mr. Saneet Shukla
i/b.Naik Paranjape & Co., for respondent No.4 in W.P. No. 1113 of
2000.
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE &
SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.
RESERVED ON: AUGUST 17, 2010.
PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 24, 2010.
JUDGMENT (PER B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution raise a common challenge and, therefore, they have been
heard together at all times. They came to be filed on or about 26th
March, 1999 and 23rd February, 2000 respectively and the initial
challenge was to the Notification dated 16th May, 1999 issued under
Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 (for short "the Act") and the
Letter of Intent issued on 1st December, 1998 in favour of respondent
No.4 which is a builder/developer company. By the Notification dated
16th May, 1998 issued by the State Government through its Housing
and Special Assistance an area admeasuring 44330 sq. meters (more
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
than 11 acres) located in Andheri East and popularly known as Saiwadi
has been acquired purportedly to execute the "works of improvement"
as envisaged under the Act. Whereas by the second impugned order
dated 1st December, 1998 the Letter of Intent has been issued in favour
of the respondent No.4 for the entire area of 44330 sq. meters acquired
by the notification dated 6th July, 1998 and though initially the F.S.I.
granted was 2.07, subsequently it has been increased to 2.5 and it has
been the contention of the petitioner that in fact it was 2.7 which was
the F.S.I. allowed in favour of the respondent No.4 on the entire land
i.e. 44330 sq. meters and permissible under D.C.R. (33.10) as
amended from time to time.
The petitioner had also challenged the constitutional
validity of Section 14(1) of the Act but during the course of arguments,
the said challenge was given up. By the subsequent amendments, the
petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17th August, 2008 passed
by the Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance, Government of
Maharashtra. In addition, the petitioner has also prayed for being
allowed to carry on construction for rehabilitation on the suit property
belonging to him.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
2. Writ Petition No.974 of 1999 is in respect of C.T.S. No.
449 (Old Survey No.33/5) of village Gundavli (Gaoligalli), Andheri
East and Writ Petition No.1113 of 2000 is in respect of Plot C.T.S. No.
429 (Old Survey No.37/13) of the very same village. The area of
C.T.S. No.449 is 1168.5 sq. meters whereas initially the area of
C.T.S. No.429 is 1,064.3 sq. meters but it appears that on C.T.S. No.
429/1 to 18 some slum came up and they occupy an area of 401.05 sq.
meters thus leaving behind the net area of C.T.S. No.429 at 662.8 sq.
meters. There is no dispute that both the petitions together are in
respect of the plot area of 1168.5 and 662.8 sq. meters which area is
covered by both the impugned orders. It is the contention of the
petitioner that the acquisition as per the Notification dated 6th July,
1998 is illegal, in violation of the principles of natural justice, contrary
to the scheme of the Act and hence void ab initio on several grounds.
The Letter of Intent dated 1st December 1998 issued in favour of the
respondent No.4 is also alleged to be illegal, in breach of the
mandatory requirements of the Act and against the State policy. It is
further alleged that by both the impugned orders the petitioner's right
to develop the property as permissible under the Act has been taken
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
away and without due notice to him and his other family members
the suit property along with other big chunk of land has been handed
over to the respondent No.4 surreptiously and in gross violation of the
provisions of the Act. We make it clear that the challenge raised in
these petitions with respect to the notification dated 6th July, 1998 as
well as the Letter of Intent dated 1st December, 1998 is required to be
confined only in respect of the suit property. We are also required to
decide some other related issues which may be called public interest
issues.
3. The respondents have opposed the petitions and the
opposition is vigorous and determined. On behalf of the respondent
No.1, Shri Nitish Thakur, Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and
Competent Authority has filed reply on 15th November, 1999 and Shri
Dilip Shinde, Deputy Secretary, Housing Department has filed
another affidavit on or about 14th January, 2010 opposing the
petitions. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Shri
Parmanand Nikumbh, Deputy Collector and Slum Rehabilitation
Authority has filed affidavit in reply on 14th January, 2010 and Shri
Prakash Kashinath Joshi, Desk Officer, Housing Department, has also
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
filed affidavit dated 16th December, 2002. At the outset it was
contended by the respondents that the petitioner has his ownership of
00.01% of the total scheme area and less than 8% of the suit plot area
and, therefore, the challenge raised in these petitions is frivolous and
on that ground alone (locus standi) the petitions ought to be dismissed.
The petitioner, therefore, amended the petitions so as to dispel the
misconception about locus standi as raised against him. Hence we
deal with the said issue of locus standi at the threshold.
4. Locus standi of the petitioner:
The suit land was originally in the ownership of Smt.
Aditbai Balkishandas (great grant mother of the petitioner) and she
had four sons by name (1) Manmohandas, (2) Bhaidas, (3) Mangaldas
and (4) Samaldas. Manmohandas begot two sons I.e. Gansukhlal and
Gulabdas, whereas Mangaldas begot four sons vis Krishnalal,
Vasantlal, Dhirajlal and Jayantilal., Bhaidas died childless in 1945 and
Samaldas, the 4th brother remained unmarried. On the demise of
Bhaidas an order came to be passed on 24th May, 1947 called as Taluka
Order No.RTSSR/II/16 and on the basis of the same Entry No.940
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
was taken in the rights register on 20th February, 1950 about 1/3rd
share of each three surviving brothers in the suit plots i.e. Survey No.
33/5 (C.T.S.No.449) and Survey No.37/95 (C.T.S. No.429). On 9th
September, 1961 all the legal representatives of Mangaldas signed
release deed in favour of Gulabdas thereby releasing their 1/3rd share
over the suit property in his favour. Samaldas who remained
unmarried also nominated Gulabdas as his L.R., and relinquished his
1/3rd share in the suit property in favour of Gulabdas. Thus Gulabdas
got 2/3rd share of his uncles Mangaldas and Samaldas. The petitioner
is the son of Gulabdas and he has a brother by name Harish, whereas
Dhansukhlal has a son by name Mukesh. Thus 1/3rd share of
Mansukhlal (grand father of the petitioner) could be shared equally
between Dansukhal and Gulabdas and Gulabdas would get 1/6th share
of the suit property. It is for these reasons that the petitioner in
paragraph 16 (a) of the petition emphatically stated that his father's
share came to 83.34% of the suit property and that the remaining
16.66% share of his uncle's branch remained with Mukesh
Dhansukhlal Shah, who has authorized the petitioner to raise the
challenge as set out in the petition. Thus the petitioner has claimed his
father's share in the suit plot 83.34% and he has been authorized by his
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
cousin who owns remaining 16.66% share. This explanation to deal
with the issue of locus standi and as put up by the petitioner has not
been challenged by bringing on record any contemporaneous
documents to the contrary. We, therefore, reject the arguments that the
petitions suffer from lack of locus standi.
5. How did Respondent No.4 get L.O.I. dated 1st
December, 1998.
It appears that the housing societies which were perhaps
chawls in the large strip of land acquired by the impugned
Notification dated 6th July, 1998 formed a Samiti called "Saiwadi
Lokseva Samiti" in the year 1990 and had taken up the cause for the
rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in the Saiwadi area of village
Gundavli, Andheri East. Though initially 13 such societies had joined
together and approached the respondentNo.4 and its Associates with a
proprosal under the S.R.D. Scheme (Slum Redevelopment Scheme)
for the plot area admeasuring 21735.50 sq. meters, 4 of these 13
societies subsequently withdrew their consent to join the said scheme
and, therefore, M/s.Consol Architects Private Limited, acting on behalf
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
of the respondent No.4 had submitted a proposal under S.R.D.
Scheme in respect of the remaining 9 societies. The proposal
submitted by the said Architects on 23rd May, 1994 was accepted by
the Rehabilitation Authority and on 26th April, 1995 a Letter of Intent
(LOI) was granted for F.S.I. of 2.5 in respect of the plot area
admeasuring 10371.92 sq. meters in favour of the respondent No.4
(the first LOI). After the Act was amended with effect from
24/10/1995 so as to provide for the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers,
meetings were held in the chamber of the Minister for Housing on 5th
March, 1997 and 7th January, 1998 and it was decided to acquire the
total area occupied by the Saiwadi slum dwellers of Gundavli village,
some portion of which was already occupied by the slums and covered
by the Letters of Intent referred to hereinabove. The architects of
respondent No.4 submitted a fresh proposal on 7th March, 1998 so as
to include the Government land C.T.S. No.447, two private lands
purchased by the developers from C.T.S. No.440 (Part) and 445 as
well as the lands belonging to the Arch Bishop, but under the
possession of the Municipal Corporation. This proposal was
accepted and a second LOI was issued on 30th April, 1998 by the SRA
in favour of respondent No.4 through its architects and for a total plot
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
area of 17,796.63 sq. meters and it was also approved for grant of FSI
of 2.419. It permitted a total built up area on the plot i.e. rehab plus
sale of 38614.70 sq. meters. On 16th May, 1998 it was suddenly
decided to add the suit plots' land in the said proposal for acquisition
and on the very same day directions were issued to the Competent
Authority to submit a proposal for acquisition of the total land
admeasuring 44330 sq. meters, excluding the government land
located in C.T.S. No.447. After it was claimed to have been acquired
by the impugned Notification dated 6th July, 1998 the respondent no.4
submitted yet another proposal on 17/10/1998 and thus the third LOI
dated 1st December, 1998 was issued by the SRA in favour of
respondent No.4 through its Architects and for the proposed slum
rehabilitation scheme and this third LOI replaced the earlier two LOIs.
However, the first phase of the project was started by respondent no.4
after the first LOI was issued on 26/4/1995. The second and third
LOIs were for the rehabilitation of slum dwellers and not for the
redevelopment of the slum area, like the first LOI.
6. Petitioner's case:
Some of the suit land was reserved by the Municipal
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Corporation of Greater Mumbai for municipal housing society under
the development plan approved by the State Government under the
M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. However, a portion of both the plots was
encroached upon by slum dwellers. One Asharam Tiwari had
encroached upon the plot in C.T.S.No.449 and constructed three
chawls in the year 1973. The petitioner's father had taken up the issue
with the Municipal Corporation for this unauthorized construction and
on 17th March, 1976 the Corporation had informed him in writing that
it had initiated action for demolition. In the meanwhile Shri Gulabdas
Shah - the father expired on 5th November, 1977. The Corporation
started issuing tax bills and from the Deputy Collector's office the
owners had received N.A. cess bills. The slum dwellers were not
remitting any of these taxes and it was under these circumstances that
the petitioner filed Short Cause Suit No.4109 of 1980 on or about 28th
July, 1980 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. While the said suit was
pending his application for appointment of Court Receiver was
allowed and the Court Receiver took possession of the suit property
(CTS No.449) on 20th August, 1980. While the said suit was pending
the petitioner received a copy of Notice of Motion No.849 of 1999
filed by respondent No.4 and prayed for directions to discharge the
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Court Receiver and hand over the possession of the suit property to
the applicant i.e. the present respondent No.4. This Notice of Motion
was filed on or about 15th February, 1999 and from the affidavit in
support thereof filed by respondentNo.4 the petitioner came to know
Notification dated 16th May, 1998 issued by the State
about the
Government under Section 14 of the Act and the said Notification was
published in the government gazette on 6th July, 1998. He came to
know that the respondent No.4 had undertaken the slum rehabilitation
scheme on the entire plot area including the suit plots and, therefore,
he approached this Court with the instant petitions. After filing the
petitions, it appears that he also approached the office of the
Lokayukta of Maharashtra State and the Deputy Collector
(Encroachment) and a notice was issued on 3rd June, 1999 by the
Section Officer from the said office. The petitioner had contended that
the suit plots were his ancestral properties and were reserved for public
purpose in the development plan and, therefore, his father could not
develop the same. The Corporation did not take any steps for
acquisition of the suit plots and a portion came to be encroached by
the slum dwellers. He also referred to S.C. Suit No.4109 of 1980 and
the appointment of Court Receiver who had already taken possession
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
of the suit plot (C.T.S. No.449) on 20th August, 1980 along with the
structures standing thereon. He claimed that the suit property is
valued about Rs.3.00 crores (1831.3 sq. meters)and that the acquisition
notification was issued at the behest of the respondent No.4. He
prayed for directions to cancel the Letter of Intent granted in favour of
the respondentNo.4 and for release of the suit plot from the said L.O.I.
The Additional Collector (Encroachment) filed reply before the
Lokayukta on 19th July, 1999 and pointed out that pursuant to the
impugned Notification gazetted on 6th July, 1998 an award under
Section 17 of the Act came to be passed and before passing of the said
award the petitioner had taken objections in writing and, therefore, the
suit land was not included in the award passed for the total area
convered by the third LOI.
7. Orders passed by this Court in these Petitions:
On 10th February, 2000 a Division Bench of this Court
passed an order and noted in para 1 as under:-
"1. Principal point amongst others raised by Mr.
Dhakephalkar and the other Counsel for the petitioners
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
in these three petitions, is with respect to the non-
compliance with Section 14 of the Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
(the Act for short) and the speed with which the further
decisions were taken within a span of less than two
months(indicating an ulterior interest) concerning the
lands which are claimed to be owned by the petitioners.
The first notification uner Section 14 of the Act was
issued concerning these lands on 16th May, 1998 whereas
the final decision was arrived at on 6th July, 1998. Mr.
Dhakephalkar submits that when a F.S.I. of 2.7 was being
offered the owners could have themselves offered to
develop the property to whom the notice is required to be
given under Section 14 of the Act."
Since the above referred issues went to the root of the matter the
Division Bench noted that it would be desirable for respondent No.4
to stay their hands with respect to the suit properties and more
particularly C.T.S. No.429 and 449.
On 20th April, 2000 another Division Bench continued the
interim order passed on 10th February, 2000 i.e. marking of the suit
plot from the total plot area of 44330 sq. meters separately. This order
came to be vacated on 28th February, 2003 by allowing Notice of
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Motion No.183 of 2002 in Writ Petition No.974 of 1999 and Notice of
Motion No.184 of 2002 in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2000.
Though the interim order was vacated, even as per the
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, on the suit plot there is
one building under construction and has come upto 3 slabs and there
is no further construction as of now. 90% of the rehabilitation scheme
executed is on the larger plot area and it consists of 10 buildings so as
to rehabilitate about 1600 hutment dwellers. The petitioner has placed
before us photographs of the present state of the building under
construction in the suit plot and it cannot be disputed that it is not
beyond the three level slabs. The respondent No.4 by its additional
affidavit dated 23rd June, 2010 has placed on record a copy of the
notification dated 24th August, 1999 and published in the Government
Gazette on 25th August, 1999 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of
the SRA in exercise of his powers under Section 3C(1) of the Act
declaring the areas mentioned in the Schedule given in the notification
as "Slum Rehabilitation Areas". At serial No.14 of the said
notification is the area of village Guntavali (Saiwadi) admeasuring
44330 sq. meters, which includes the suit plots.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
The Scheme of the Act
8. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 received the ascent of the President of
India on 3rd April, 1971 and it was brought into force from 3rd
September, 1971 for the areas within the limits of the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and for the cities of Pune, Solapur,
Nagpur and Aurangabad. It was originally an Act for improvement,
clearance and redevelopment of the slum areas. It has been amended
at 15 times beginning from 26th April, 1973 and ending on 19th May,
2005. In the original Act there were in all 7 Chapters with 48
Sections. The first Chapter was preview. The second Chapter for
Slum Areas, the third Chapter for Slum Improvement, the fourth one
for Slum Clearance and Redevelopment and the 5th one for the
Acquisition of Land. Chapter VI provided for the Protection of the
Occupiers in Slum Area from Eviction and Distress Warrant, whereas
Chapter VII was for Miscellaneous Provisions. Thus originally the
Act was meant for slum improvement, clearance and redevelopment.
However, Maharashtra Ordinance No.XIV of 1995 was issued so as to
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
add Chapter 1A and titled as "Slum Rehabilitation Scheme" and it
was brought into force with effect from 24th October, 1995. The
ordinance was repealed by Act No.4 of 1996. Chapter 1-B was
inserted by Maharashtra Ordinance No.XXVII of 2001 and was
brought into force with effect from 18th May, 2001.
The said
ordinance was repealed by Maharashtra Act 10 of 2002. The said
Chapter has been titled as "Protected Occupiers Relocation and
Rehabilitation". Chapter 1-C has been inserted in the Act with effect
from 23rd October, 2003 and pursuant to Ordinance No.X of 2003
which was repealed by Maharashtra Act No.1 of 2005. The said
Chapter is titled as "Special Provisions for in SITU Rehabilitation
Housing Schemes for Protected Occupiers in Slum Areas". For the
present consideration Chapter 1-A is relevant and it provides for slum
rehabilitation scheme and it has been brought into force with effect
from 24th October, 1995. Thus when the first LOI dated 26th April,
1995 for the total plot area admeasuring 10371.92 sq. meters was
issued in favour of the respondent No.4, Chapter 1-A was not in the
statute book and, therefore, what was submitted on behalf of the
respondent No.4 was only the slum redevelopment scheme and not
the slum rehabilitation scheme. It is for the first time that on 7th
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
March, 1998 on behalf of respondent No.4, a proposal was submitted
for the slum rehabilitation scheme as contemplated under Chapter 1-A
of the Act and it was also contended that about 74% of the slum
dwellers from the concerned area had consented for the same. The
first LOI for slum rehabilitation scheme was granted in favour of the
respondent No.4 on 30th April, 1998 for an area admeasuring 17796.63
sq.mtrs. including the plot of land owned by the Government i.e.
C.T.S. No.447 and the FSI granted was 2.419.
9. Some of the relevant definitions from the Act are
reproduced as under:-
(b) "building" includes a house, out-house, stable, shed,
hut and other enclosure or structure, whether of masonry
bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material
whatsoever, whether used as human dwelling or
otherwise; and also includes verandahs, fixed platforms,
plinths, door-steps, electric meters, walls including
compound walls and fencing and the like, but does not
include plant or machinery comprised in a building.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
(c) "Competent Authority" means a person or body
appointed to be the Competent Authority under section 3.
(d) "land" includes building and also benefits to arise out
of land, things attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to anything attached to the earth.
(e) "occupier" includes -
(i) any person who for the time being is paying or
is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion
of the rent of the land or building in respect of
which such rent is paid or is payable.
(ii) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using,
his land or building.
(iii) a rent-free tenant of any land or building.
(iv) a license in occupation of any land or building;
and
(v) any person who is liable to pay to the owner
damages for the use and occupation of any land or
building.
(f) "owner", when used with reference to any building or
land, means the person who receives or is entitled to
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
receive the rent of the building or land, if the building or
land were let, and includes -
(i) an agent or trustee who receives such rent on
account of the owner;
(ii) an agent or trustee who receives the rent of, or
is entrusted with, or concerned for, any building or
land devoted to religious or charitable purpose;
(iii) a receiver, sequestrator or manager appointed
by a court of competent jurisdiction to have the
charge of or to exercise the rights of owner of the
said building or land, and
(iv) a mortgagee-in-possession;
[but does not include, a slumlord;]
(ga) "slum area" means any area declared as such by the
Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of section 4.
(h) "Slum clearance" means the clearance of any slum
area by the demolition and removal of building therefrom.
(h-b) "Slum Rehabilitation Area" means a slum
rehabilitation area, declared as such under sub-section (1)
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
of section 3C by the Competent Authority in pursuance of
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section
3B.
(h-c) "Slum Rehabilitation Authority" means the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority or Authorities appointed by the
State Government under section 3A.
(h-d) "Slum Rehabilitation Scheme" means the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section 3B.
(i) "Tribunal" or "Special Tribunal" means a Tribunal or
Special Tribunal which the State Government is hereby
empowered to constitute consisting of, -
(a) the President, being a person who, -
(i) is or has been a District Judge or has
practised as a Pleader or Advocate or both for
not less than eight years and is holding or has
held the post not below the rank of the Joint
Secretary in the Law and Judiciary
Department; or
(ii) is holding or has held any judicial office
for not less than eight years; or
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
(iii) is practising or has practised as an
Advocate for not less than eight years; and
(b) two members, -
(i) one of whom shall be a person who is
holding or has held the post not below the
rank of the Deputy Director of Town
Planning; and
ig (ii) the other shall be a person who is holding
or has held the post not below the rank of the
Superintending Engineer to /Government;
(j) "works of improvement" includes in relation to any
building in a slum area the execution of any one or more
of the following works, namely:-
(i) repairs which are necessary:
(ii) structural alterations;
(iii) provision of light points, water taps and
bathing places;
(iv) construction of drains, open or covered;
(v) provision for latrines, including conversion of
dry latrines into flush latrines;
(vi) provision of additional or improved fixtures or
fittings;
(vii) opening up or paving of courtyards;
(viii) construction of passages or roads;
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
(ix) any other work including the demolition of
any building or any part thereof which in the
opinion of the Competent Authority is necessary for
executing any of the works specified above.
9A. Sections 3A to 3W are under the newly added Chapter 1-
A of the Act and Section 3A provides for appointment of Slum
Rehabilitation Authority by the State Government by notification in
the official gazette. The powers, duties and functions of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority have been set out in sub-section (3) of
Section 3A of the Act. As per Section 3B the State Government or the
SRA concerned, with the previous sanction of the State Government,
shall prepare a general slum rehabilitation scheme for the areas
specified under sub-section (1) of Section 3A for the rehabilitation of
slums and hutment colonies in such areas. Such a scheme is required
to be published in the official gazette as the Provisional Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme for the information of general public so as to
invite objections and suggestions giving reasonable period of not less
than 30 days in respect of the said scheme. These objections and
suggestions are required to be considered by the Chief Executive
Officer of S.R.A. and thereafter the final scheme is required to be
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
published in the official gazette and to be called as the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme. Section 3C states that after the publication of
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on being
satisfied that circumstances in respect of any area, justifying its
declaration as slum rehabilitation area under the said scheme, may by
an order published in the official gazette, declare such area to be a
"slum rehabilitation area". The order declaring slum rehabilitation
area shall also be given wide publicity in such manner as may be
specified by the S.R.A. As noted earlier, in the instant case the
declaration of slum rehabilitation area has been published in the
official gazette on 25th August, 1999 by the Chief Executive Officer. It
is not known whether there was wide publicity to the said order passed
by the Chief Executive Officer as per Section 3C (1) of the Act. Any
person aggrieved by the slum rehabilitation order may, within four
weeks of the publication of such order, prefer an appeal to the special
Tribunal and the decision of the said Tribunal shall be final, as per
Section 3C(2) of the Act.
As per Section 3D the provisions of Chapter II and III of
the Act shall be omitted and will not be applicable for the slum
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
rehabilitation area as declared by an order passed under Section 3C(1)
and Section 11 in Chapter IV shall stand omitted, whereas Section 12
shall be amended as stipulated therein. Section 13 shall be substituted
as under:-
"13(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(10) of section 12, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority may,
after any area is declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area,
if the landholders or occupants of such area do not come
forward within a reasonable time, with a scheme for re-
development of such land, by order, determine to
redevelop such land by entrusting it to any agency for the
purpose.
(2) Where on declaration of any area as a Slum
Rehabilitation Area, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, is
satisfied that the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area,
has been or is being developed by the owner in
contravention of the plans duly approved, or any
restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section (1) of
Section (10) of Section 12, or has not been developed
within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, it
may, by order, determine to develop the land by entrusting
it to any agency recognized by it for the purpose.
Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why
such order should not be passed."
Section 14(1) which is under Chapter V (Acquisition of
Land) shall stand amended as under for its applicability to the scheme
of Chapter 1-A of the Act :-
"(1) Where on any representation to the Chief Executive
Officer it appears to the State Government that, in order
to enable the slum rehabilitation authority to carry out
development under the slum rehabilitation scheme in any
slum rehabilitation area it is necessary that any land within
adjoining or surrounded by any such area shall be
acquired. The State Government may acquire the land by
publishing in the official gazette and notice to that effect
that the State Government has decided to acquire the land
in pursuance of this Section, provided the State
Government may delegate its powers under this sub-
section to any officer not below the rank of
Commissioner".
As per Section 14(1A) the acquisition of the land for any
purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a public
purpose.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Section 14(2) states that when a notice as aforesaid is
published in the official gazette, the land shall, on and from the date
on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State
Government free from all encumbrances.
10. The proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 14 in
Chapter V, which does not apply to the slum rehabilitation area as
declared under Section 3C(1) of the Act, mandates that before
publishing the notice under Section 14(1), the State Government or as
the case may be, the Collector may call upon by notice to the owner of
or any other person who, in his opinion may be interested in such
land, to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired,
with reasons therefor, to the Collector within the period specified in
the notice and the Collector shall, with all reasonable dispatch,
forward any objections so submitted together with his report in
respect thereof to the State Government and on considering the report
and the objections, if any, the State Government may pass such order
as it deems fit. It is, therefore, evident that this requirement of notice
to be issued by the Collector to the land owners has been done away
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
with for the slum rehabilitation area as declared under Section 3-C, but
at the same time it is pertinent to note that even the amended Section
14(1), the acquisition of land contemplated is not from the slum
rehabilitation area, but any land within the adjoining or surrounded by
any such area. Thus the Act does not contemplate acquisition of land
under Section 14(1) from the slum rehabilitation area and it
contemplates such acquisition only in respect of any land within the
adjoining or surrounded by any such area. The petitioner's land is
purportedly part of the slum rehabilitation area as declared by the
order published in the gazette on 25th August, 1999. It must also be
noted at this stage itself that the impugned notification dated 6th
July, 1998 speaks for acquisition of the large area of 44330 sq. meters
for executing the "works of improvement" and not for acquisition of
the land within the adjoining or surrounded in slum rehabilitation area.
11. Section 15(3) and (4) for Chapter I-A of the Act read as
under:-
"15(3) Where the land has been acquired for the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, the State Government shall, after it
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
has taken possession thereof, by notification in the Official
Gazette, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon between
Government and Slum Rehabilitation Authority, transfer the
land to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and thereupon the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority may entrust, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 3B(4), the work of development of
such area to any other agency as provided in sub-section (1) of
section 13, or to a Co-operative Housing Society of the
occupants of such rehabilitation area or occupants of any other
area which has been delcared as Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(4) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority may, subject to such
terms and conditions as the State Government consideres
expedient for securing the purpose of this Act, transfer by way
of lease such land to the Co-operative Housing Societies of
such occupants."
12. Based on the averments in the petition, as amended from
time to time, the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents, the
documents placed before us by all the sides during the course of final
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
hearing and the arguments advanced by the parties, the following
issues arise for our considerations:-
(i) Whether the State Government was in error and has
illegally exercised its power to issue the notification dated
6/7/1998 under Section 14(1) for the "works of
improvement" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act?
(ii) Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land by the
notification dated 6/7/1998 and/or subsequently by the
order passed by the Secretary in the Department of
Housing Development on 17/8/2000 and by the Principal
Secretary on 30/1/2002 is unsustainable in law?
(iii) Whether the LOI dated 1/12/1998, issued in favour of
respondent no.4 by respondent nos.2 and 3, suffers from
any illegality and is in breach of any provisions of the Act
as well as principles of natural justice?
(iv) Whether the suit plots' area (1168.5 + 662.8 sq.mtrs.)
has been amalgamated by the competent authority with the
total area acquired under the notification dated 6/7/1998
and whether the respondent no.4 has vested right over the
suit plots?
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
(v) Whether the suit lands stood vested with the
Government automatically on issuance of the notification
dated 6/7/1998 under Section 14(1) of the Act?
The first issue framed above is required to be considered
in the public law interest and Issue No. (iii) has been framed by us as a
copy of the notification dated 25/8/1999 issued by the Chief Executive
Officer under Section 3C(1) of the Act has been placed on record along
with the additional affidavit filed on 23/6/2010 on behalf of
respondent no.4 and in the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 to 3, it was never even suggested that the said
notification was issued by the Chief Executive Officer of SRA. On the
contrary, it has been the case of the petitioner right from the beginning
that the provisions of Section 3B, 3C and 3D as well as other
provisions of Chapter I-A were not followed by the said respondents in
respect of his land and the respondents to counter these arguments
submitted that it was not so necessary and once the land vested with
the State Government, Regulation No.33(10) of the D.C. Regulations
permitted respondent nos.1 to 3 to proceed further without issuing any
notification under Section 3C(1) of the Act.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
13. Section 2(j) of the Act has defined the term "works of
improvement" and Section 5A has set out what may consist of the
"improvement works". In the instant case, though the petitioner
proceeded on the basis that his land was not declared as a slum as
required under Section 4(1) of the Act, the notifications brought on
record dispel these contentions. The land in CTS No. 429 came to be
declared as a slum by the notification dated 15/10/1977 and it was
gazetted on 27/10/1977, whereas the land in CTS No. 449 came to be
notified as a slum area under Section 4(1) of the Act on 7/12/1995 and
was published in the gazette on 4/11/1996. There is no challenge to
both these notifications and thus it is finally concluded that the suit
plots were declared as slum areas. The petitioner had the remedy of an
appeal to the tribunal under Section 4(3) of the Act and that remedy
was never invoked. As per Section 5(1) of the Act, where the
competent authority is satisfied that any slum area is capable of being
improved, so as not to be a source of danger to the health, safety or
convenience of the public of that area, it may serve upon the owner or
owners and every mortgagee of the properties in that area or any part
thereof, a notice informing them of its intention to carry out such
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
improvement works as in its opinion are necessary and asking each of
them to submit his objections or suggestions to the competent authority
within thirty days from such notice. A copy of such notice shall also
be displayed at some conspicuous places in the area for the information
of the occupiers, thereof and for giving them also an opportunity to
submit their objections or suggestions, if any. On such display of the
notice, the owners, occupiers and all other persons concerned shall be
deemed to have been duly informed of the matters stated therein. As
per Sub-section (2) of Section 5, after considering the objections and
suggestions received within the time aforesaid from the owners,
occupiers and other persons concerned, the competent authority may
decide and proceed to carry out the improvement works with or
without modifications or may postpone them for a certain period or
cancel the intention to undertake the works. There is nothing on
record, placed before us by the respondent nos. 1 to 3, to show that the
requirements of Section 5(1) of the Act were met before the State
Government proceeded to purportedly acquire the land under Section
14(1) of the Act for works of improvement. We have made these
observations only because it is claimed that the land was acquired for
"works of improvement", and when it comes to the slum rehabilitation
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
area, Section 5, which falls in Chapter II, is not applicable.
14. Let us see the comparative requirements of "works of
improvement" as set out in Section 2(j) and Section 5A of the Act:
Section 2(j) Section 5A
2. In this Act, unless the 5A. For the purpose of this Act, the
context otherwise requires,-- improvement works may consist of all
(j) "works of improvement" or any of the following:-
includes in relation to any
building in a slum area the (a) laying of watermains, sewers and
execution of any one or more
ig storm water drains;
of the following works, (b) provision of urinals, latrines,
namely:- community baths, and water taps;
(i) repairs which are necessary: (c) widening, realigning or paving of
(ii) structural alterations; existing roads, lanes and pathways and
(iii) provision of light points, constructing new roads, lanes and
water taps and bathing places; pathways;
(iv) construction of drains, (d) providing street lighting;
open or covered; (e) cutting, filling, levelling and
(v) provision for latrines, landscaping the area;
including conversion of dry (f) partial development of the area with
latrines into flush laterines; a view to providing land for
(vi) provision of additional or unremunerative purposes such as
improved fixtures or fittings; parks, playgrounds, welfare and
(vii) opening up or paving of community centres, schools,
courtyards; dispensaries, hospitals, police stations,
(viii) construction of passages fire stations and other amenities run on
or roads; a non-profit basis;
(ix) any other work including (g) demolition of obstructive or
the demolition of any building dilapidated buildings or portions of
or any part thereof which in the buildings;
opinion of the Competent (h) any other matter for which, in the
Authority is necessary for opinion of the Competent Authority, it
executing any of the works is expedient to make provision for
specified above. preventing the area from being or
becoming a source of danger to safety
or health or a nuisance.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
On the other hand, in the impugned notification dated
6/7/1998, which states that in order to enable the State - Deputy
Collector (Encroachment) and Competent Authority, Mumbai
Suburban District, the acquisition for the "works of improvement"
mentioned in Part-I of the Schedule appended in the notification and
Schedule Part - I reads as under:-
(a) Laying of water mains sewer and storm water;
(b) Provision of urinals, latrines, community baths and
taps;
(c) Widening, realigning or paving the existing roads,
lands and pathways and constructing new road, lanes
and pathways;
(d) Providing street lights;
(e) Cutting, filling, leveling and landscaping the areas;
(f) Partial developments of the area with a view of
providing land for unremunerative purpose such as
parks, playgrounds, welfare and community centre,
school, dispensaries, hospitals, police fire station
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
and other amenities run on a non profit basis;
(g) Demolition of obstruction or dilapidated building
or portion or buildings;
(h) Redevelopment of slum existing on the land.
15. At the out-set, let it be noted that Clause (h) of the
Schedule Part-I of the notification does not find place in Section 2(j) or
Section 5A of the Act. The record indicates that the land acquired by
the impugned notification was entirely for the slum rehabilitation and
not for slum redevelopment or for works of improvement. In this
regard, it would be safe to rely upon the documents submitted by
respondent nos.2 and 3 during the course of final arguments, including
the applications submitted by respondent no.4 and the notes of scrutiny
report of the proposal submitted by the officers of respondent nos.2 and
3. These documents clearly state that after Chapter-I-A was inserted
in the Act by Maharashtra 4 of 1996, a meeting was held in the
chamber of the Minister for Housing on 5/3/1997 for the proposed
rehabilitation of the slum area known as "Saiwadi". This meeting
was followed by another meeting held on 7/1/1998 and thereafter the
Saiwadi Punarvikas Yojana Sangh submitted an application dated
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
19/1/1998 to respondent nos.2 and 3 for rehabilitation of the slum
dwellers in the Saiwadi area. On 9/4/1998 the Government of
Maharashtra issued a notification and published the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme as required under Section 3B of the Act. By
letter dated 10/6/1998 the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) submitted
to the Secretary of Housing Development Department, Government of
Maharashtra, a proposal for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in
Saiwadi area and for acquisition of the said land under Section 14(1) of
the Act and on the basis of the local enquiry made pursuant to the letter
dated 16/5/1998. This proposal for acquisition for rehabilitation was
submitted on 5/5/1998 and thereafter on 16/5/1998. Prior to that the
Deputy Collector, SRA, Bandra approached, vide his letter dated
22/3/1998, the Collector (Encroachment) Andheri, clearly informing
that the Saiwadi area land was required for rehabilitation of the slum
dwellers and, therefore, acquisition under Section 14 of the Act of the
private land which formed a part of the total area proposed for
rehabilitation was submitted. Thus from 5/3/1997 onwards, the
Government was pushing for rehabilitation scheme and not the
redevelopment scheme for the Saiwadi slum dwellers and the Act does
not permit "works of improvement" to be read as "rehabilitation".
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
"Works of improvement" and "rehabilitation of slum dwellers" cannot
go together under the scheme of the Act. Thus the Schedule Part -I
incorporated in the impugned notification dated 6th July, 1998 is of no
consequence when the land was required and sought to be acquired for
the rehabilitation of slum dwellers under Chapter I-A of the Act.
16. Section 4(6) of the Act states that while deciding an appeal
filed under Subsection (3) of Section 4, the tribunal shall ignore the
works of improvement executed in such slum area by any agency of
the Government or any local authority after the declaration thereof as
such slum area by the competent authority under Sub-section (1).
Under Section 42 of the Act, there is a bar of jurisdiction. No civil
court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the
Administrator, Competent Authority or Tribunal is empowered by or
under the Act to determine; and no injunction shall be granted by any
court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in
pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act, save as
otherwise expressly provided therein. Thus the only remedy available
for the petitioner against the declaration of slum area was an appeal
before the tribunal and having missed that opportunity he could not
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
have filed any civil suit and has, therefore, filed this petition as a last
resort. However, the fact remains that the reason for acquisition,
namely, "works of improvement" is only a facade and having
published the general rehabilitation scheme for the Greater Mumbai
area on 9/4/1998 under Section 3B of the Act and the representation
dated 19/1/1998 having received from the slum dwellers of Saiwadi
area, the deliberations in the meeting held by the Minister for Housing
Development, it was decided for the rehabilitation of these slum
dwellers and the private land in the area was required to be acquired
for the same. At the same time, the record also indicates that though
proposals were submitted on 22/3/1998 and 5/5/1998 by the Deputy
Collector, SRA, Bandra to the Collector (Encroachment) Andheri for
acquisition of the land for the proposed slum rehabilitation of Saiwadi
area, the petitioner's land was not part of these proposals in as much as
the subject plots were not included. For the first time and surprisingly
only in the proposal submitted on 16/5/1998, the land in CTS Nos.429
and 449 was included for the proposed slum rehabilitation scheme to
be undertaken. The Assistant Engineer (I)(SRA) in his letter to the
Additional Collector (SRA) submitted on 15/5/1998 referred to the
CTS numbers from which the land for the proposed slum rehabilitation
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
scheme for village Gundavali and popularly known as Saiwadi was
required to be acquired and the CTS numbers of the suit plots did not
find place in this letter. The said letter stated that the slum
rehabilitation scheme has been tentatively approved on the plots stated
therein and the Architect of respondent no.4 had submitted 1131
agreements made with the slum dwellers of Saiwadi Society. The
Architect had also stated that 74.2% of the dwellers had agreed for the
slum rehabilitation scheme and their list was enclosed along with the
said letter. The scope of the requirement of the said land was never
intended to be for "works of improvement". This letter also proves
that the suit plots were not proposed to be acquired till 15/5/1998.
From the documents submitted by the SRA, the note dated 24/4/1998
and approved on 27/4/1998 by the Chief Executive Officer did not
propose the inclusion of the suit plots. Even the letter dated 30/4/1998
i.e. the second LOI issued by the SRA to the architect of respondent
no.4 did not include the suit plots. The land for the slum rehabilitation
scheme was to be acquired under Section 14(1) as as applicable and
amended in Chapter I-A of the Act and not on the basis that the suit
plots were part of the slum area declared under Section 4(1) of the said
Act. Hence, the impugned notification dated 6/7/1998 for acquisition
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
of the land for 'works of improvement" is unsustainable and
acquisition for works of improvement was only a facade so as to short-
circuit the statutory process for acquisition of the land and more
particularly the process set out in Chapter I-A of the said Act. The
acquisition of the suit land is vitiated as the landholders' right under
Section 13(1) as amended for Chapter I-A of the Act was taken away.
These findings are confined only to the suit plots and not the remaining
area.
17. Now coming to the requirement of issuance of notice to
the petitioner before the impugned notification dated 6/7/1998 is
concerned, the observations made by the Division Bench on 24/4/2000
have, in fact, settled this issue. We reproduce the said observations in
para 2 of the order dated 24/4/2000.
"2. It appears to us that the issue as to whether the
petitioners were given a proper notice before making
orders under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is
not free from doubt. Though we are shown the records of
the concerned Authority, we are not satisfied therefrom
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
that the petitioners and all other persons interested in lands
concerned were given a fair notice of hearing, or heard
before the notification was made. It is indisputable that
once a notification is issued under Section 14, by virtue of
sub-section 2 thereof, the land automatically vests in the
State Government. This is, doubtless, a drastic
consequence, and hence, it is all the more necessary that
the persons affected by such a consequence must be given
a fair hearing"
In the orders dated 17/8/2000 passed by the Secretary,
Housing Development Department, it was clearly observed that the
notices in respect of CTS No.429 were addressed to Krishnalal
Mangalal Raghav and two others and not to the petitioner or any of his
family members and in respect of CTS No.449 the notice was isued
only to Dhansuklal Mohandas, though the record placed before us
indicates that the owners of CTS No. 449 were shown as some other
members of the family. We reproduce the observations made by the
Secretary in the said order:
".... I have found the notices issued U/s. 14(1) have been
wrongly issued for CTS No.429. This action needs to be
remedied to cure the acquisition proceedings of any
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
shortcoming. The notices of acquisition should be issued
to persons appearing in the property card and 7/12
extracts. The notice for the acquisition of the property also
wrongly mentioned Krishnalal Mangalal Raghav and two
others as owners of the property. The notices repeat this
error. I find that notices were issued to Dhansuklal
Mohandas for CTS No. 449 and to Krishnalal Mangalal
Raghav and other two for CTS No. 429. It is true the
petitioner should have been taken steps to update the
records and bring the Court Receiver and the heirs on
record. He has failed to do this. However, notices have
not been sent to the persons appearing in the property
card, for CTS No. 429 which show Shri Krishnalal
Mangaldas Shah, Dhansuklal Shah and Shamaldas Shah as
owner. Whereas notices have been sent to Krishnalal
Mangalal Raghav and two others. The names of the two
others were also not mentioned either in the notification or
in the notices that were issued. This was a mistake and
this action needs to be remedied. I set aside the
acquisition of CTS No. 429. The respondent may reapply
to the Competent Authority for acquiring this property. As
regards CTS No. 449, I see no reason to interfere with the
acquisition, as the notices were sent correctly the
publication on the site was also done in compliance with
the provision of the law and cannot be faulted. The
petitioner failed to prove title as well as the continuance of
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
the Court Receiver's custody, as the suit filed by him in
the City City Court has also abated."
18. The above order passed by the Secretary, Housing
Development Department, was a subject matter of challenge in Writ
Petition No. 1919 of 2001 and the case was remanded to the Principal
Secretary for fresh hearing in respect of CTS No. 429. On 30/1/2002
the Principal Secretary, Housing Department, after hearing the parties,
passed a fresh order and he upheld the acquisition of CTS No. 429
under Section 14(1) of the Act as it was in the best interest of the slum
dwellers. He also stated that the owner of the property was entitled
for compensation on acquisition of the land and the work of
rehabilitation had progressed substantially and as undertaken by the
developer-respondent no.4. The Principal Secretary also stated that
after the scheme was duly approved by the competent authority i.e. the
SRA, any variation in the order now would result in difficulties which
would go against the slum redevelopment scheme and equity as well as
balance of convenience did not lie in favour of the petitioner Shri Anil
Shah.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
19. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondents that both these orders i.e. the order dated 17/8/2000 passed
by the Secretary in respect of the acquisition of CTS No. 449 has been
approved and upheld by this court in the order dated 30/4/2001. We
have perused the said order and this court observed that the claim of
the petitioner was confined only to CTS Nos. 429 and 449 which
formed a very small part of the project and that the petitioners' share
was only 8% and that they had filed a suit.
ig It appears that the full
record could not be brought to the attention of this court when this
order dated 30/4/2001 was passed and the petitioner being aggrieved
by some of the observations made therein, had filed a Review Petition
and by the order dated 4/2/2003 this court clarified that the
observations made in the order dated 30/4/2001 were only of prima
facie opinion and all the parties to the petition were entitled to argue
afresh on merits at the final hearing of the petition, despite the
observations made in the order under review.
We have noticed that the record which has come before us
during the course of final hearing was not placed before the earlier
Division Benches in its totality and more particularly the notification
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
published on 25/8/1999 regarding the slum rehabilitation area under
Section 3C(1) of the Act. The ramifications of this notification under
Section 3C(1) of the Act are fatal to the acquisition of the suit land as
well as the LOI issued in favour of respondent no.4 on 1/12/1998.
20. The reasoning given in the orders passed by the Secretary
and the Principal Secretary upholding the acquisition of the suit plots is
self contradictory and just because the development work undertaken
by the respondent no.4 had progressed and that the owner would be
entitled for compensation for the acquired land, it could not be said that
the acquisition was legal. Both these authorities did not refer to the
fact that the plot in CTS No. 449 was in possession of the Court
Receiver and the Court Receiver was never issued any notice. It would
be interesting to refer to para 4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.
Nitish Thakur, Deputy Collector, in this regard.
"4. I further say that on 13th April, 1999, the petitioner
Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah objected that he is one of the
heir of the property owner of property bearing CTS No.
429/429-1 to 18 and 449(pt). I further say that a hearing
was given by the Competent Authority on 14.5.99 and
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
20.5.99 to the petitioner but he failed to produce
documentary evidence to prove his heirship. I also
recorded his statement on 14.5.99 and 20.5.1999. I further
say that during the enquiry period, the petitioner orally
informed that there is a Suit No.4109/80, pending int
heHigh Court and the possession of the said land is under
the Court Receiver. I say that till the petitioner referred in
the said suit, this office was not aware of the same.
Therefore, on 28th May, 1999 and 24th June, 1999 this
office wrote a letter to the Hon'ble Court Receiver, High
Court, Mumbai, who in turn informed this office on 19th
August, 1999 giving the details in respect of the
possession of the said land with them. It is pertinent to
note that in the affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 in
regard to it, the Respondent No.4 has referred that suit was
dismissed and the Court Receiver is discharged, but as per
the letter of the Court Receiver dated 19th August, 1999, it
seems that the Court Receiver is still in possession of the
said property thereafter."
Section 36 of the Act prescribes the mode of service of
notice and it reads as under:-
36 (1) Every notice, order or direction issued under this
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Act shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,
be served,-
(a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or direction or
by sending it by registered post to the person for whom it
is intended; or
(b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice,
order or direction on some conspicuous part of his last
known place of abode or business, or by giving or
tendering the notice, order or direction to some adult
member or adult servant of his family or by causing it to
be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or
land, if any, to which it relates.
(2) Where the person on whom a notice, order or direction
is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or
upon any adult member or adult servant of his family shall
be deemed to be the service upon the minor.
(3) Every notice, order or direction, which by or under
this Act is to be served as a public notice, order or
direction or as a notice, order or direction which is not
required to be served on any individual therein specified
shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be deemed to
be sufficiently served if a copy thereof is affixed in such
conspicuous part of the office of the Competent Authority
or in such other public place during such period, or is
published in such local newspaper or in such other
manner, as the Competent Authority may direct.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
In the instant case, the ownership of CTS No. 429 was
shown in the name of some other persons and notices were issued to
such aliens and not to the petitioner and other co-sharers. So far as
CTS No. 449 was concerned, the Court Receiver was in possession and
he had no notice at any point of time before 6/7/1998. Even otherwise,
the 7x12 extract placed on record indicated that pursuant to the decree
passed in 1949, mutation entry was effected on 20/2/1950 and 1/3rd
share of each of the three surviving sons of the original owner was
shown in respect of the suit property. The Government record thus
indicated that Dhansuklal was not the only owner and notice was
admittedly issued only to him on or about 16/5/1998 and the other
owners were not the true owners. It was urged before us that even
otherwise, consequent to the order passed by this court on 24/4/2000,
the petitioner was heard and, therefore, the requirement of principles of
natural justice was complied with during the course of hearing before
the Secretary as well as the Principal Secretary. It was urged by the
respondents that on this ground alone, the acquisition was required to
be upheld and there is no reason to hold that the notification dated
6/7/1998 is vitiated in respect of the petitioner's plots. We do not
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
agree with these submissions and more so because on 9/4/1998 itself
the SRA published the general slum rehabilitation scheme under
Section 3B(2) of the Act and thus the scheme of Chapter I-A for slum
rehabilitation would be applicable from that date. The acquisition of
the land of the petitioner would be, therefore, required to be completed
as envisaged under Chapter I-A of the Act. As noted earlier, the
scheme of Section 14(1) of the Act is different for the acquisition of the
slum areas for redevelopment as well as works of improvement on one
hand and for the slum rehabilitation scheme on the other. The
acquisition in the instant case is for the slum rehabilitation scheme and
for the slum rehabilitation area as declared by the notification dated
25/8/1999. Thus the acquisition of the petitioner's land by the
impugned notification dated 6/7/1996 is of no consequence. None of
these officers examined the core issue as to whether the suit land could
be acquired for "works improvement" on the face of the fact that a
notification under Section 3C(1) was published on 25/5/1999. They
were called upon to hear the petitioner, as a statutory requirement and
it was therefore incumbent upon them to examine whether acquisition
of the suit land could be done when it was included the slum
rehabilitation area declared on 25/8/1998. The Act does not recognize
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
that the slum land is acquired first and then it is declared as a slum
rehabilitation area, when it comes to the private ownership land. Once
the notification under Section 3C(1) of the Act is published, it creates
some vested rights in favour of the owners of the land covered under
the slum rehabilitation area. The owners get the first choice to
undertake the rehabilitation scheme and only on their failure to do so
within a specified period as required under Section 13 of the Act and as
applicable to Chapter I-A, that the State Government can proceed to
acquire the land and undertake the rehabilitation scheme or hand it
over to any other agency to undertake such a scheme as is clear from
the scheme of Section 15(3) as amended under Chapter I-A of the Act.
21. It is pertinent to refer at this stage to the affidavit-in-reply
by Shri Prakash Joshi, Desk Officer, in the Ministry of Housing
Development on 16/12/2002. In para 9 of the said affidavit it is stated
on behalf of the State Government as under:-
"9. I say that as per amendment of 1996, if the SRA
wants to redevelop any property which is a slum, then
declaration of the said property as slum area under Section
3(B) of the said Act and procedure under Section 3(C) and
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
3(D) has to be followed. Since this redevelopment is not
by the SRA and the said redevelopment has been
proposed by the society on majority of 70% consent,
hence procedure under Section 3(C) and (D) is not
required to be followed and therefore procedure under
Section 14(1) is necessary. I say that the amendment does
not take away the authority of the State Government under
Section 14(1) in respect of acquisition of the slum area. I
say that redevelopment includes work of improvement and
therefore the representation is absolutely as per provision
of the Act and is required to be upheld. I say that Section
3(c) of the said Act need not be applicable to this scheme
in view of the Government Authority under Section 14(1)
of the said Act. I say that notice of acquisition under
Section 14(1) of the said Act in respect of the acquisition
of the property is a notification and not an order and
therefore it is not necessary to issue a reasoned order to
the petitioner. The only aspect is to be considered as to
whether objections have been considered or not and
therefore does not require to pass any reasoned order
either accepting or rejecting the objection. Therefore, the
Notification is absolute within the jurisdiction and as per
the said Act......"
These averments have to be outrightly rejected as
fallacious in view of the notification dated 25/6/1999 issued under
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Section 3C(1) of the Act by the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA
and we hasten to add that the submissions so made tend to suppress the
material facts. This affidavit of the Desk Officer has also relied upon
Regulation No.33(10) of the DCR so as to contend that it was not
necessary to notify the slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C even
after the general slum rehabilitation scheme was published under
Section 3B(2) of the Act on 9/4/1998. Respondent No.4 has also
supported this argument and contended that the acquisition under
Section 14(1) was final, legal and the suit land stood vested with the
State Government and, therefore, the rehabilitation scheme undertaken
by it could continue safely and without any illegality by following
Regulation No.33(10) of the DCR. This argument has to be discarded.
A Division Bench of this court in the case of Om-sai Darshan Co-
operative Housing Society and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
[2006 (5) ALL MR 323] has considered the very same issues and
turned down the same, after considering the scheme of Chapter I-A of
the Act as well as Regulation No. 33(10). The Division Bench in Om-
sai Society's case (Supra) had framed the following three questions for
considerations:
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
(i) Whether the issuance of notification under section
3C(1) of the Slum Act is a condition precedent for sanction
of slum redevelopment scheme governed by D.C.
Regulation 33(10)?
(ii) What is the meaning of the slum rehabilitation area
for the purpose of D.C. Regulation 33(10)?
(iii) Whether the Petitioner No.1 - proposed society is
entitled to grant of sanction to develop a particular area out
of CTS 539/C-1?
The findings on issue No.3 are not relevant for our
considerations. The Division Bench noted that when the learned
Single Judge decided the case of M/s. Pooja Enterprises vs. The Chief
Executive Officer and ors. [2000 (3) ALL MR 65], the amendment
made by Maharashtra Act VI of 1997 to section 3C(1) of the Act was
not brought to the notice of the learned Judge and by the said
amendment, power has been vested with the Chief Executive Officer,
SRA to issue the notification and the learned Single Judge had
proceeded on the assumption that the power under Section 3B is to be
exercised by the SRA and power under Section 3C is to be exercised
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
by the competent authority. The Division Bench, therefore, stated,
"..... On a plain reading of section 3C, it is apparent that
after publication of general scheme under section 3B, the
Chief Executive Officer of the SRA on being satisfied that
circumstances exist in respect of any area justifying its
declaration as slum rehabilitation area may, by an order
published in the Government Gazette declare such area to
be slum rehabilitation area. It must be noted here that
section 3B(1) provides for preparation of general
rehabilitation Scheme for the areas specified in sub-
section (1) of section 3A. Sub-section (1) of section 3A
provides that the State Government will constitute a Slum
Rehabilitation Authority for such area or areas as may be
specified in the notification. As pointed out earlier, the
SRA was constituted for the area falling within Greater
Mumbai. Thus the power under section 3C(1) is to declare
any area as slum rehabilitation area under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme published under section 3B.
In the present case we are dealing with the scheme
of slum redevelopment which is governed by Regulation
33(10). A General Scheme under section 3B of the Slum
Act can be framed either by the State Government or by
SRA with the prior approval of the State Government.
However, the scheme under clause 33(10) is to be
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
approved in individual cases by the SRA. Clause (II) of
Annexure to the said Regulation 33(10), a slum means
that area which is either censused or one which is declared
and notified under the Slum Act...."
It is thus clear that in Om-sai Society's case, the Division
Bench was dealing with the scheme of slum redevelopment, which is
governed by Regulation 33(10) and it was not a scheme for
rehabilitation of the slum dwellers. It is pertinent to note that there is a
distinction between the terms "slum area" and "slum rehabilitation
area". The first one is notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereas
the latter one is notified under Section 3C(1) of the Act and after
publication of a general slum rehabilitation scheme under Section
3B(2) of the said Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that the respondents,
in the instant case, cannot rely upon Regulation 33(10) of the DCR and
the averments made in the affidavit of Shri Prakash Joshi, Desk
Officer, are without any merits. The decisions of this court (Single
Judge) in the case of Satyanarayan R. Dubey and ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors. [2007 (4) AIR Bom R 501] and S. Ramkrishna
Nayak & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. [W.P. (L) No. 1477 of
2006 decided on 13/9/2006] are not applicable to the facts of this case.
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
22. No doubt, on acquisition of the land under Section 14(1)
vests with the State Government under Section 14(2) of the Act, but in
the instant case we have already recorded the finding that the
acquisition of the suit plots for "works of improvement" was a facade
and the acquisition was only for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. In
addition, we have also held that the orders passed by the Secretary as
well as the Principal Secretary, Housing Development Department did
not consider this aspect i.e. acquisition for works of improvement and
though the petitioner was heard by both these authorities, the issue of
legality of the notification dated 6/7/1998 qua the petitioner's property
was not considered and instead both the officers were overwhelmed by
the progress made by respondent no.4 in the development of the
project i.e. the slum rehabilitation scheme Saiwadi. As noted earlier,
when the initial LOI dated 26/4/1995 was issued for an area
admeasuring 10371.92 sq.mtrs. in favour of respondent no.4, it was the
proposal under the SRD scheme i.e. slum redevelopment scheme and
Chapter I-A was not inserted in the Act at that time. It is only after the
meeting held in the chamber of the Minister for Housing on 5/3/1997,
the proposal for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers was mooted and
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
considered and, therefore, when the second proposal was submitted by
the respondent no.4 on 7/3/1999 for a larger area i.e. 9+4 Co-operative
Societies and to club the plots bearing CTS No.447 and 453 with a
total area of 33,338.10 sq.mtrs. that the proposal for slum rehabilitation
scheme was considered and accordingly the second LOI dated
30/4/1998 was issued by the SRA in favour of respondent no.4.
Clauses 40, 41 and 42 of the said LOI read as under:-
"40. That you shall pay total amount of Rs.1,39,40,000/-
towards deposit to be kept with SRA at the rate of Rs.
20,000/- per tenement and total amount of Rs.
1,90,30,090/- towards infrastructure development charges
at the rate of Rs.840/- per sqm. on total built-up area
sanctioned for the scheme as and when demanded by
C.E.O. (SRA).
41. That you shall pay development charges as per 124-E
of MRTP Act separately for sale built-up area as per
provision of MRTP Act.
42. That this letter of intent is valid for the period of 3
(Three) months from the date of issue."
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
After the impugned notification dated 6/7/1998 under
Section 14(1) of the Act was issued, respondent no.4 submitted its third
proposal to the SRA on 17/10/1998 and included the suit plots as well
and for a total area of 44,330 sq.mtrs. and even by this time the
notification under Section 3C(1) of the Act was not issued either by the
State Government or by the SRA and that is how the third LOI and
which has been impugned in this petition, was issued in favour of
respondent no.4 by the SRA on 1/12/1998 and for undertaking the slum
rehabilitation scheme. It was stated in the said LOI that 1605 non
residential tenements, 40 commercial tenements, 17 balwadies, 17
welfare centres would be developed and the rehabilitation will be for
21 Co-operative Housing Societies on the built-up area of 44,330
sq.mtrs. with 2.5 FSI. While issuing the LOI dated 1/12/1998 it was
necessary for the SRA to verify whether the notification under Section
3C(1) of the Act was issued and the said LOI could not have been
issued solely on the basis of the purported acquisition under the
notification dated 6/7/1998. When the scheme of the Act has set out
various steps for undertaking the projects for rehabilitation of slum
dwellers, it is mandatory that all the steps are taken before the letter of
intent was issued. It is not known as to why the SRA was in such a
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
hurry and it did not even think to apply its mind to the requirements of
the Act. The whole process appears to have been short-circuited and
under the guise of acquiring the land for the "works of improvement".
We, therefore, find fault with the LOI dated 1/12/1998 but only in
respect of the suit plots. Section 15(3) and (4) as amended for Chapter
I-A of the Act, does allow the land to be handed over to a third agency
for the rehabilitation of slum dwellers but it could be so done only after
the private land ownersig were called upon to undertake the
rehabilitation and that they declined or failed to do so. Hence the LOI
dated 1/12/1998, to the extent it covers the suit land, is vitiated and it
deserves to be set aside as illegal and void ab initio.
23. Now coming to the issue as to whether respondent no.4
has a vested right over the suit plots, the petitioner, after filing this
petition, approached the Lokayukta on or about 15/4/1999 and
consequently on receiving the notice from the office of the Lokayukta,
the Additional Collector (Encroachment) filed a detailed reply and
submitted that the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and Competent
Authority, Andheri had on 16/5/1998 submitted a proposal for
acquisition of the land, including the petitioner's land and after issuing
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
notices, a proposal for acquisition was submitted on 10/6/1998 and
17/6/1998 to the Secretary, Housing Department. The proposal was for
rehabilitation of the slum dwellers. On 13/4/1999 the petitioner had
appeared before the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and objected to
the acquisition as well as passing of the award. Consequently, the suit
plots i.e. CTS Nos.429 and 449 were deleted from the award. It was
specifically stated as under :-
"
Moreover, the Applicant in his application has
stated that Suit No. 4109/1980 is pending in the Mumbai
City Civil Court, in respect of City Survey No. 449.
Accordingly, information has been sought by the Deputy
Collector (Encroachment), Andheri by his letter Dt.
28/5/1999, from the Court Receiver. The Complainant,
while the amount of compensation being determined under
Section 17, gave a written letter and stated that he has a
right in respect of C.S. Nos.429, 429/1 to 18, 449 out of
the acquired land. Pursuant to the said written objection,
the Deputy Collector (Encroachment), Andheri, had
granted opportunity to the Objector (Intervener) to
putforth his objection and as it has come to the notice that
the suit in respect of the land bearing C.S.No.449, out of
the properties in the Objection application, is pending in
the City Civil Court, and as per the objection of the
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Objector, the amount of compensation in respect of C.S.
Nos.429, 429/1 to 18 C.S. Nos. 449, has not been fixed
(determined) and excluding the said properties, the award
for compensation has been declared under Section 17."
24. By letter dated 7/6/1999 addressed to respondent no.4, the
Deputy Collector (Encroachment), Andheri, called upon the said
respondent to remit an amount of Rs.19,76,080/- towards the award
amount and while doing so it was very specifically informed that the
compensation for the suit lands was not included in the said amount to
be deposited by respondent no.4. In response to the application
submitted by respondent no.4 on 26/3/1999, the SRA passed the
amalgamation order dated 30/11/2000 and partitioned the land covered
by the impugned notification dated 6/7/1998. In the said order dated
30/11/2000, the suit land was not included as is clear from the
schedule of property/plots attached thereto. Thus the respondent no.4
was aware as on 7/6/1999 as well as 30/11/2000 that the suit land was
not amalgamated with the remaining land covered by the LOI dated
1/12/1998. It is clear from the record that immediately on receipt of
the first LOI, the respondent no.4 had undertaken the first phase of
construction in respect of the land admeasuring 19,371.92 sq.mtrs. and
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
it was a scheme for redevelopment. Pursuant to the second LOI dated
30/4/1998, which was for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers and on a
total area of 33,338.10 sq.mtrs., four additional societies were to be
rehabilitated and the petitioner's plots were not included in the said
area. When the third LOI dated 1/12/1998 and which is impugned in
this petition, was issued, including the suit plots, the second phase
appears to have been undertaken, but respondent no.4 was well aware,
all along, that in the amalgamation of the total area, the suit plots were
not included. In our opinion, therefore, the respondent no.4 has no
vested right over the suit plots. It has not paid compensation for the
suit plots nor the suit plots were included in the amalgamation order
dated 30/11/2000 and there is nothing on record to show that the said
order was subsequently modified so as to include the suit plots.
25. Though, we have held that the impugned notification is
unsustainable and the respondent no.4 has no vested right over the suit
plots, these findings by themselves do not entitle the petitioner to seek
possession of the said plots area. The notifications issued under
Section 4(1), declaring the suit plots as slum areas and the notification
issued under Section 3C(1) on 25/8/1999 have received finality. Under
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Section 3C(2) of the Act, any person aggrieved by the slum
rehabilitation order may, within four weeks of the publication of such
order prefer an appeal to the Special Tribunal; and the decision of the
Special Tribunal shall be final. In the instant case, the slum
rehabilitation order has been published on 25/8/1999 and the petitioner
had the remedy of filing an appeal before the Special Tribunal against
the said order under Section 3C(2) of the Act within a period of four
weeks of publication of the said order. It has been the consistent stand
of the petitioner that such an order was not issued, but the order having
been published in the Official Gazette, the petitioner may not have the
remedy of appeal as of now and knowing this position in law, he has
pressed for the relief that owners of the suit plots must be given an
opportunity to develop the slum area and rehabilitate the slum
dwellers. Some of the slum dwellers have appeared before us and filed
an affidavit supporting the proposal of the petitioner that he ought to
be allowed at the first instance to undertake the slum rehabilitation
work. Section 13(1), as applicable for Chapter I-A, states that the SRA
may, after any area is declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area, if the
landholders or occupants of such area do not come forward within a
reasonable time, with a scheme for re-development of such land, by
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
order, determine to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any agency
for the purpose. As per sub-section (2) of Section 13, where on
declaration of any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area the SRA, is
satisfied that the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area, has been or is
being developed by the owner in contravention of the plans duly
approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section
(10) of section 12, or has not been developed within the time, if any,
specified under such conditions, it may, by order, determine to develop
the land by entrusting it to any agency recognized by it for the purpose.
Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be
passed. Thus, under Section 13 of the Act and as applicable for
Chapter I-A therein, the SRA is obliged to offer the suit land first to the
petitioner or to the occupants thereon to come forward for
redevelopment of the same and only on their failure, the land could be
handed over to a third party. This statutory scheme cannot be given
go-by. If the land holders or the occupants of the area do not come
forward within a reasonable time for redevelopment of the land so as to
rehabilitate the slum dwellers or by an order passed by the SRA to
determine to develop the land, then only the provisions for acquiring
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
the land and then to transfer it to any agency under Sections 14 and 15
as applicable to Chapter I-A of the Act will come into play. This
process shall have to be followed by respondent nos.1 to 3 in respect of
the suit plots which have already been declared as a Slum
Rehabilitation Area in terms of the notification dated 25/8/19999. This
is how the scheme of the Act, for the purpose of rehabilitation of slum
dwellers, ought to be understood and interpreted. The doctrine of
expressum facit cessare tacitum, which means express mention of one
thing implies the exclusion of other, has been applied by the Supreme
Court in various cases to enunciate the principle that expression
precludes implication. The Supreme Court held in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh and anr. vs. Kailash Chand Mahajan and ors. [AIR
1992 SC 1277] that it is always safer to apply plain and primary rule of
construction. The first and primary rule of construction is that
intention of the legislature is to be found in the words used by the
legislature itself. The true or legal meaning of an enactment is
derived by construing the meaning of the word in the light of the
discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its
remedy to which an enactment is directed. Hence the alternative
prayer for the payment of reasonable compensation cannot be
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
considered at this stage.
26. The petitioner has made an alternate prayer of reasonable
compensation, but in course of arguments he gave up the said prayer
and insisted for the suit plots to be offered to the owners for the slum
rehabilitation scheme. By relying upon this alternative relief, the
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the most the land
owners could be granted compensation, especially when the award
passed under Section 17 of the Act has excluded the suit plots. These
submissions appears to be convincing, but cannot be considered in
view of the scheme of the Act. Under Section 13 (1) of the Act and as
applicable to Chapter I-A therein, the land owners or the slum dwellers'
society has to be offered at the first instance to undertake the slum
rehabilitation and if they fail to do so within a fixed time, the SRA,
can under Section 15(3) of the Act allot the suit plots to some other
agency and only in that event there may be a question of offering
compensation to the land owners. Such an eventuality has not arisen in
the instant case on account of the insistence of the petitioner that he is
willing to undertake the rehabilitation project and he has the slum
dwellers on the suit property with him. In this regard he has relied
upon the affidavits filed by some of the slum dwellers during the
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
course of the hearing of these petitions. Hence, in our opinion, the
alternative relief of granting compensation, to be paid to the land
owners, in respect of the suit plots cannot be considered at this stage.
At the same time, in the eventuality of the land being required to be
handed over under Section 15(3), as amended for Chapter I-A of the
Act, the issue of payment of compensation at the market rate may
arise.
27. In the premises, these petitions succeed and the same are
allowed partly. The impugned notification dated 6th July, 1998 and the
LOI dated 1st December 1998, only to the extent of the suit plots area
(1168.5 + 662.8 sq.mtrs.), are hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall proceed to comply with Section 13 as
applicable to Chapter I-A of the Act, in respect of the suit plots area
and in case of failure of the land holders or the occupants to come
forward within a reasonable time with a scheme for redevelopment of
the plot area for the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, they may
proceed to determine to undertake the rehabilitation on the suit land by
entrusting it to any other agency by taking further due steps under the
os-wp-974-99 & 1113-2000
Act.
(SMT. ROHAN DALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)
At this stage Mr. Chinoy, the learned Senior Counsel,
submitted an oral application on behalf of respondent no.4 to suspend
the operation of this order for a period of six weeks. None is present
for the petitioner. However, having regard to the peculiar facts of this
case, it would be appropriate to allow this oral application, but with
conditions.
Hence, the operation of the above order stands stayed for a
period of six weeks from today on the condition that the respondent no.
4 shall maintain status quo as of now in respect of the construction on
the suit plots.
(SMT. ROHAN DALVI,J) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)
