2008 Supreme(SC) 1925

2009(1) Supreme 195
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Pramila Suman Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7435 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3166 of 2007)
Decided on : 19-12-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Guidelines may not have statutory force but unless and until they are held ultra vires, they are to be complied with.

Headnote:(a)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI, rule 1 – Pleadings must be read as a whole. (Para 39)

       (b)Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulation 33(10) – The key requirement for application for development is consent of 70% of the eligible slum dwellers – It does not require documents verifying ownership of the plot to accompany such application. (Para 43)

       (c)Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulation 33(10), Appendix IV – Annexure II – When the authorities refused to verify Annexure II filed by appellant, it was obligatory on her to challenge the validity thereof. (Para 52)

       (d)Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulation 33(10), Appendix IV – Annexure II – Guidelines may not have statutory force but unless and until they are held ultra vires, they are to be complied with – Therefore the application for grant of sanction for development of a slum area in Annexure II was required to be submitted. (Para 53)

       2006 (4) Mh. L.J. 282; 2007 (6) Mh. L.J. 851 – Referred.

       (e)Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – The Supreme Court is not precluded from considering a contention not raised before High Court. (Para 60)

       (f)Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulation 33(10) – If the scheme is final and binding upon everybody, merger of the plots is impermissible. (Para 61)

       (g)Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – In a case of this nature, the High Court was required to go into the merit of the matter – It should not have decided such issues only on the ground of lack of locus standi of the appellant to maintain the writ application. (Para 63)

       (h)Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Keeping an issue pending for long by statutory authority without any plausible reason may be held to be unreasonable. (Para 63)

       Facts of the case :

       1.Appellant herein is a developer while respondent No.6 is a proposed Cooperative Group Housing Society. Both were entitled to file applications for development scheme of the slum areas.

       2.In terms of the provisions of 1966 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder Final Plot Nos. 559 and 569 were demarcated. Both the said Final Plots were, however, tenanted or encroached.

       3. On or about 21st October, 1978 an order/Notification was passed/issued under Section 3(a) of the Slum Development Act declaring the said F.P. No.559 as a Slum Land. Under the Development Plan for City of Mumbai the said plot was proposed to be reserved for recreation ground which was later confirmed in the year 1992 in terms of the final development plan.

       4.Appellant claimed ownership of plot No.559 of Town Planning Scheme IV of Mahim Division admeasuring 5274.30 sq. mts. out of which 1242.30 sq. mtrs. of land was acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. No compensation is said to have been paid for the said acquisition.

       5.F. Plot No.569, however, admeasures 9702 sq. mts. In the year 1995 respondent No.6 filed an application for development of a part of Plot No.569 measuring 3205 sq. mtrs. of land. On 15th October, 1996 the Bombay Municipal Corporation granted a ‘no objection certificate’ in its favour in requisite form i.e. Annexure-II in respect of F. Plot No.569 admeasuring 3205 sq. mtrs. including the four chawl which were known as Dholkwala Chawl. It gave all the particulars of eligible Slum dwellers and had granted consent to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

       6.Appellant also filed an application and obtained a ‘no objection certificate in respect of F. Plot No. 559.

       7.Bombay Municipal Corporation rejected the said proposal stating that it had already issued Annexure-II in favour of respondent No.6 and all the 32 names had been appearing therein.

       8.A composite building plan in favour of respondent No.6 was approved on 2nd July, 2005. They were directed to carry out construction activities.

       9.Thereafter only appellant filed a writ application before the High Court for directions and/or orders to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider her proposal, in accordance with law, for sanctioning the Slum Scheme or issuance of the Letter of Intent or a Commencement Certificate.

       10.No interim order was passed despite the fact that by that time construction of the building had already commenced.

       11. The appellant again filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court for grant of an interim relief. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by an order 22nd June, 2006 recording the statement made by the Authority that a final order on the appellant’s application would be passed within seven days.

       12. Questioning the legality of the order passed by the Authority, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the purported reasons assigned by the Authority were extraneous and not germane for considering her application.

       13. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ application.

       Finding of the Court :

       Appellant having not annexed Annexure II in respect of plot No. 569 (part) along with her original application, there is no legal infirmity in the authority’s impugned order dated 28th June, 2006.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.