Bombay High Court
Mrs. Anjana Ramchandra Doiphode vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority And Ors on 2 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:31133
11fa368-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.368 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1288 OF 2013
Mrs. Anjana Ramchandra Doiphodi ... Appellant.
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. ... Respondent.
----------
Mr. Ditendra Mishra, for the Appellant.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : August 02, 2024
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. By this Petition, the challenge is to the judgment dated 4 th
February, 2013, dismissing the suit on the preliminary issue of
jurisdiction. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by
their status before the Trial Court.
3. The facts of the case are that the S.C. Suit No.110 of 2010 was
filed by the Plaintiff seeking declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled
to get alternate accommodation in lieu of the suit premises being
Room No.C-104, Maharashtra SRA Co-operatives Housing Society
(Proposed) situated at Dharavi Shastri Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai and
sa_mandawgad 1 of 5
11fa368-13
for injunction restraining the Defendant from dispossessing the
Plaintiff from the suit premises.
4. The case pleaded in the plaint is that the Defendant No.2
therein i.e. the Chairman/Secretary of Maharashtra SRA Co-operatives
Housing Society (Proposed) is claiming that the entire area including
the Plaintiff's structure is declared as slum. It was further pleaded
that the Plaintiff had submitted her documents in respect of the suit
premises with the Defendant No.2 but has not been given any
response about the alternate accommodation which is being provided
under the SRA scheme. It is further pleaded that the Defendant Nos.2
and 3 therein, i.e. the Chairman/Secretary of the Respondent-Society
as well as the Developer are bound to provide her alternate
accommodation under the SRA scheme by executing proper and
necessary agreements. It is further pleaded that the Plaintiff is ready
and willing to vacate the suit premises, if the Defendants offered a
temporary transit camp and permanent accommodation in lieu of the
suit premises. The cause of action is an apprehension of the
dispossession from the suit premises without following the due
process of law.
5. The Defendant No.3-Developer filed his written statement
challenging the maintainability of the suit contending that the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit and the
2 of 5
11fa368-13
jurisdiction to decide the eligibility of the Plaintiff to an alternate
permanent accommodation vests exclusively in the Competent
Authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, "Slum Act").
6. A preliminary issue came to be framed by the Trial Court. Vide
the impugned judgment, the Trial Court held that the averments in
the plaint clearly indicate that the Plaintiff is claiming her right as
occupant in the suit premises to claim alternate permanent
accommodation and that in lieu of the Section 42 of the Slum Act and
in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the Tulsiwadi
Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra,
[2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 851], a High Power Committee was constituted and
any complaint about eligibility of the slum dwellers and in respect of
other benefits under the Slum Act is to be moved before the said
Committee. The Trial Court held that the jurisdiction of this Court is
barred by virtue of provisions contained in Section 42 of the Slum Act.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that
subsequently the entire slum scheme has been implemented by
excluding the structure of the Plaintiff. He would further submit that
there is an apprehension that the Plaintiff would be dispossessed
from the suit premises without due process of law.
8. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
3 of 5
11fa368-13
9. Reading of the plaint as a whole would indicate that the entire
area including the plaintiff's structure was declared as slum. The case
of the Plaintiff is that she is entitled to a permanent alternate
accommodation in lieu of the suit premises and although she has
submitted her documents as regards her eligibility, there is no
response in respect of the same. Upon a holistic reading of the entire
plaint, it is clear that the Plaintiff is claiming her right to an alternate
accommodation under the slum scheme which was at the relevant
time sought to be implemented by the SRA through the Defendant
No.3-Developer.
10. The Trial Court has rightly framed the preliminary issue of
jurisdiction as the Civil Court will not have the jurisdiction to decide
the eligibility of the Plaintiff in respect of the slum scheme. Section 42
of the Slum Act is very clear and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
in respect of any matter which the Authority under the Act is
empowered to determine and no injunction is to be granted by any
Court or Authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in
pursuance of the powers conferred by the Slum Act. The Plaintiff
claims eligibility under the Slum Act and on the basis of the said
eligibility has raised a claim for permanent alternate accommodation.
The suit came to be filed as there was no response by the
Respondents as far as her claim qua her eligibility in the slum scheme.
4 of 5
11fa368-13
11. It is well settled that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
has been constituted to deal with any complaints about eligibility of
slum dwellers, against the developers for not completing the project,
as regards any complaint or any benefit which are to be received while
the slum scheme is being implemented. In view of Section 42 coupled
with the fact that there is a specific committee which has been
constituted to decide the eligibility of the slum dwellers under the
Slum Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred.
12. In any event, the slum scheme is already implemented by
excluding the structure of the Plaintiff and there is no basis for the
apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
the Appellant would be forcibly dispossessed. In any event even under
the Slum Act for the purpose of evicting any slum dweller a proper
notice under Section 33/38 of the Slum Act is required to be issued. As
the slum scheme is already completed, there is no question of any
notice also being issued. The Trial Court has rightly answered the issue
of jurisdiction.
13. First Appeal fails and stands dismissed. In view of the disposal
of the Appeal, Civil/Interim Applications, if any, taken out in this
Appeal, does not survive and same is disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
5 of 5
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/08/2024 14:50:48
