IMPORTANT POINTS
Viable stretch of slum is not confined to pavement.
Slum refers to an area and not plots.
There is no infirmity in clubbing municipal and private plots making one viable stretch of slum.

JUDGMENT

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. These civil appeals are directed against judgment of Bombay High Court dated 31.08.2010 in W.P.(L) No.1915 of 2010 and dated 10.08.2010 in W.P.No.316 of 2010 respectively whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed. For the sake of brevity facts have been taken from C.A.No.9363 of 2011. The High Court negatived all the five contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and upheld the order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the High Powered Committee of the Govt. of Maharashtra dismissing Appeal No.62 of 2010 preferred by the appellants to challenge the sanction of a scheme by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority of lands bearing CTS No.106, 106/1 to 5, 107/1 to 9, 108(Part), 111(Part), 111/1 to 77, 80 to 132 and 112(Part) of Village Kurla, Hutatma Prabhakar Keluskar Marg (Match Factory Lane), Kurla(West), Mumbai and also the orders for their eviction from the private lands.

2. On behalf of the appellants, only C.A.No.9363 of 2011 was argued at length by learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Parikh. He made it clear that this appeal relates not to the municipal plots but only to private plots which are owned privately bearing plot nos.106, 107 and 108. It is the appellants’ case that a total of 124 families occupied dwellings in the slums existing over said plots. According to Mr. Parikh the respondent authorities committed error of law in treating the slum area over municipal plots and those over private plots as one slum area. This, according to Mr. Parikh, deprived the slum residents over private plots of having their own redevelopment activity limited to private plots as per the wishes of 70% of its occupants. As per his submission, by illegally declaring a common slum area over two different kinds of lands, one owned by municipal authority and the other by private persons, the rights of the petitioners to have their own say has been diluted and adversely affected. In other words, the major grievance of the appellants is that the respondents have wrongly treated that there exists a consent for redevelopment from 70% of the occupants. Such claim, according to appellants, must be rejected and the appellants should be allowed to have the redevelopment through a cooperative of occupants of private plots exclusively. The other contention of the appellants is that their does not exist any valid Annexure II with respect to the private plots.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocate, appearing for respondent no.10 relied upon the same very legal provisions which were highlighted by Mr. Parikh to submit that there is no requirement in law to divide a slum area on the basis of nature of ownership of the concerned plots and since the private plots and municipal plots are contiguous, hence, for the purpose of redevelopment slum over both was rightly treated as one slum area and the same is permissible under the regulations. As a corollary, it was submitted that if the socalled merger is permissible then the requirement of consent of 70% of the occupants stands fully complied. It was further submitted that as a fact the High Powered Committee and the High Court have found that there exists valid Annexure II issued even in respect of slums over private plots.

4. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Advocate, appearing for respondent no.8 who is the developer as well as owner of private lands, highlighted the rights and liabilities of owners of land declared as slum area and submitted that there was no violation of law in grant of approval to the rehabilitation scheme in the instant case to which respondent no.8 had given his consent. Mr. Sishodia, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as well as Mr. Atul Chitale, Sr. Advocate for the Respondent No.12-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai also defended the action of the authorities as well as order of the High Court upholding the decision taken by the High Powered Committee.

5. The relevant facts and relief sought by the