Bombay High Court
Santosh Tukaram Patil And 25 Ors vs Slum Rahabilitation Authority And 4 Ors on 18 December, 2023
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
wpl26976-22-mentioned-nob.doc
PVR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 26976 OF 2022
Santosh Tukaram Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Rajesh N. Bhavsar, for the Petitioners.
__________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2023
P.C.
1. Not on board taken on board on a praecipe as moved on
behalf of the petitioners, as an alternate Bench.
2. As the regular Bench is not available, this proceeding
was moved before us today at 4.30 p.m. by Shri. Rajesh Bhavsar,
learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. Accordingly, we called for the record of this petition.
4. We find that by judgment dated 7 November 2023 as
rendered by the Division Bench (G. S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ.) the
present petition was rejected and the ad-interim orders passed on the
petition were vacated, with certain serious observations as made in
paragraphs 47, 48, 50 and 51 of the said judgment. Once the
1 of 3
wpl26976-22-mentioned-nob.doc
petition itself was rejected and ad-interim orders stood vacated by the
Court as observed in the judgment, there is no question of any relief
being granted to the petitioners.
5. However, Mr. Bhavsar has drawn our attention to the
order dated 15 December 2023 passed by the Division Bench (G. S.
Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ.). It appears that in passing such order, it was
not brought to the notice of the Court that the petition was already
rejected by judgment and order dated 7 November 2023, and
accordingly, adjourned the proceeding to 16 January 2024. It is quite
significant that on 15 December 2023, instead of Advocate Mr.
Rajesh Bhavsar who was appearing before the Division Bench at the
time judgment dated 7 November 2023 was delivered, was not the
Advocate for the petitioners, and it was Mr. Anil Mishra, Rohan B.
and Mr. Pankaj Jadhav, Advocates who represented the petitioners.
The said order dated 15 December 2023 passed by the Division
Bench (G. S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ.) is required to be noted which
reads thus:-
"1. The Petitioners have been held to be eligible in a slum
scheme. They are entitled to all the benefits associated with
eligibility including the execution and registration of a
Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement ("PAAA")
and payment of transit rent as directed or as agreed. This has
nothing whatever to do with the continuance of the slum
structures on the site. The structures needed remain only to be
surveyed. Obviously, that survey has been done. The fact that
2 of 3
wpl26976-22-mentioned-nob.doc
one particular structure has been accepted but the other is not
immaterial. If the question is of fact, then the writ remedy is
not appropriate.
2. As it stands, the documents of the Petitioners have been
assessed to eligibility and this is reported in Annexure II.
3. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee ("AGRC")
Appeal can proceed on its merits.
4. There is no question of saying demolition of structures
or their removal. This will adversely adversely affect the entire
slum scheme and will adversely prejudice a very large number
of slum dwellers, for whom the Petitioners are completely
unable to provide any form of security.
5. List the matter on 16th January 2024."
6. Considering the above order, we are not inclined to
grant any relief to the petitioners. Suffice it to observe that whatever
benefits the order records in relation to execution and registration of
Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA), are
concerned, the same would be required to be complied by the
developer / society.
7. In the above circumstances, we cannot accept the
request of Mr. Bhavsar that a relief be granted in the dismissed
proceedings that the structures of the petitioners be not demolished.
The request is, accordingly, rejected.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
3 of 3
