SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1273

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA
Sonu Babu Bhambid & Others
Versus
Dream Developers & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4583 OF 2009 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12082 of 2009]
Decided on : 21-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:V. Shekhar, Senior Advocate, Anjani K. Singh, Zangpo Sherpa, Prasanth B., V.K. Sidharthan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate, Hemant Mehta, Jain Zaveri, Advocates.

Headnote:Urban Development-Rehabilitation Scheme-Regulation 57(4)(C) of Development Control Regulation, 1991-Trial - Judge held that as appellants failed to obtain an essentiality certificate and C.T.S. No. 61 was not declared as slum area, question of taking recourse to slum rehabilitation scheme did not arise-Appeal dismissed by High Court by impugned judgment-Appellants said to have been in possession of property in question as trespassers-They are said to have acquired indefeasible title thereto by alleged possession for more than 30 years-For the purpose of attracting rehabilitation scheme area in question should be declared as a slum area-It is only for said purpose, appellants were required to obtain eligibility certificate-Grant of eligibility certificate was sine qua non for enforcement of agreement-As the occupants failed to get such certificate, agreement would ipso facto come to an end and occupants would have no right against party of other part-No legal infirmity in impugned order-Appeal dismissed with cost. (Paras 6, 7, 10 to 13)

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order XLI, Rule 27 -Additional evidence-Appellants merely filed an application for bringing additional document on record-Said document not filed before City Civil Court - It was, obligatory on part of appellants to file an application for permission to file said document by way of additional evidence in terms of Order XLI Rule 27. (Para 15)

       (2005)5 SCC 61 : (2003)10 SCC 390 - Referred to.

       Judicial Discipline-When a Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction, Appellate Court would be slow to interfere therewith unless sufficient and cogent reasons exist therefor. (Para 17)

       (2003)10 SCC 390-Relied upon.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

2.2. Appellants herein are slum dwellers. They and/ or their predecessors encroached upon a property bearing C.T.S. No. 61, Survey No. 59 in village Mulgaon. Indisputably, an agreement was entered into by and between the parties hereto with regard to their rehabilitation on C.T.S. No. 82, the relevant conditions whereof read as under:

"3. Eligibility

There are a number of huts which are existing on the slum property, whose names of occupant and structures are appearing in 1995 voters list and are occupying the same till date. It will be the responsibility and obligation of the occupant to obtain Eligibility Certificate by the Competent Authority. In case the Occupant fails to get such certificate this agreement will ipso facto come to an end and occupant will not have any rights against the party of the other part. The eligibility certificate to be issued by concerned Authority shall be final and binding.

4. Consent

Slum dwellers hereby agree and give consent to participate in SPA as per DCR (10), Appendix IV. If, however, the Developer is unable to implement SRA scheme due to any reasons, the occupant will still get the allotment of 225 sq. ft. carpet area on ownership basis form the Developer in this case the proposal will be sanctioned by MCGM. In other words, the interest of the occupant is safeguarded from all angles. The occupant is hereby aware and agrees to shift into permanent ultimate accommodation admeasuring 225 sq. ft. carpet area which will be consisted for them on CTS No. 82 village Mulgaon."

1.3. Inter alia on the premise that the appellants failed to obtain eligibility certificate, the respondents started construction of commercial building on Survey No. 82.

2.4. The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay which was marked as

Short Cause Suit No. 7 of 2009 praying inter alia for a declaration:

"(a) That this Honble Court may be pleased to declare that the agreements under the head as "Agreement between Slum dwellers and Developer" as identical to Exhibit B to the plaint entered into on different dates between Defendant No. 1 and 2 and the plaintiff are effective, subsisting and binding on the parties and accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to be provided a flat of carpet area of 225 sq. ft. in the plot CTS No. 62 situated at Moolgaon, Andheri

(E) Mumbai;

b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit any construction activities in view of the IOD dated 18-10-2007 CC dated 18-10-2007 and sanctioned plan dated 19th July, 2007 on CTS No. 82 situated at Moolgaon, Andheri (E) Mumbai be stayed in the interest of justice."

5. In the said suit, the appellants took out a notice of motion for grant of injunction for the following terms:

"(a) the pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, any construction activities in view of the IOD dated 19.07.07 CC dated 08.02.08 and sanctioned plan dated 19th July, 2007 on CTS No. 82 situated at Moolgaon, Andheri (E), Mumbai be stayed in the interest of justice."

2.6. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated 16.02.2009 opined that as the appellants failed to obtain an essentiality certificate and C.T.S. No. 61 was not declared as slum area, the question of taking recourse to the slum rehabilitation scheme did not arise. It was, however, held:

"...I find much substance in the submissions made by the ld. Advocate for defendant that no residential premises can be constructed on C.T.S. No. 82 as it comes under the commercial zone and there is permission in respect of the construction of commercial premises only on C.T.S. No. 82 by the Municipal Corporation and as performance of the agreement between the defendants and slum dwellers cannot be specifically enforced, the reliefs as prayed in the notice of motion cannot be granted..."

1.7. An appeal preferred thereagainst before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

2.8. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top