Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MR. MOHIT S. SHAH & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Nenshi Monji (Bombay), a Family Trust & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1489 of 2008 with Contempt Petition No. 14 of 2012
Decided On : 16-01-2015
For the Petitioners:Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Advocate i/by M/s. Madekar & Co., Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 to R4, E.P. Bharucha, Senior Advocate, with Geeta Shastri, Addl. Govt. Pleader, R5, A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate, with A.P. Jadhav, R6, G.D. Uttangale, B.V. Phadnis, R7, Girish Godbole i/b. Akshay P. Jadhav, Advocates.
Headnote:Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 14 and 17 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(b) Constitution of India, Article 226 Contempt petitionMaintainability of. - contempt petition filed against SRA and developer was not maintainable and dismissed on the ground that S.R.A. and developer were not made parties in petition at the time when status quo order was passed and when SRA issued letter of intent for developer. - In fact, SRA and developer were not even parties to the petition either when the status quo order was passed or when the Letter of Intent was issued by SRA on 23 September 2010 in favour of the developer. As regards mutation entry in the revenue record, such an entry is required to be made for fiscal purposes i.e. for collection of land revenue and to ensure that on the basis of previous entries the petitioners did not transfer title to or possession of the lands in question in favour of any third party.
Court, therefore, do not find any substance in the contempt petition and Contempt Petition No. 14 of 2012 stands dismissed.
(Chief Justice)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the acquisition of petitioners' lands under final Notification dated 22 December 2005 issued by the State Government under section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“the Slum Act” or "the Act'). The petition further challenges the award dated 19 May 2006 passed by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal) (Deputy Collector) under Section 17 of the Act.
2. Initially the petitioners had also challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of sections 14 and 17 of the Act. The present petition along with a group of other petitions were heard on the limited question of constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions and by judgment dated 10 May 2013, a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Chief Justice) was a party, upheld the constitutional validity of sections 14 and 17 of the Act. The operative order in the judgment in the group of petitions including present writ petition reads as under:
ORDER
"(A) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 14 and 17 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) is rejected. We hold that the provisions of Sections 14 and 17 of the said Act are intra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.
(B) It is declared that before and after the amendment of Section 14(1) of the Slum Act by Maharashtra Act No.11 of 2012, the State Government or the Competent Authority is empowered to acquire the land within a slum area and also the lands adjoining or surrounded by a slum area.
(C) The petitioners/land owners/aggrieved persons will be at liberty to file appeals under section 17(6) of the Slum Act against the amounts determined by the Competent Authority under Section 17(5) thereof, within 30 days from the date of this judgment. If such appeals are filed within 30 days from today, the appeals shall be treated as filed within a period of limitation;
(D) The appeals shall be heard and decided on merits and in pending appeals also, the parties will be at liberty to file additional pleadings and/or documents in support of their case for higher compensation. The Appellate Authority shall re-determine the compensation in accordance with law after giving full opportunities to the parties."
Thereafter, the writ petitions have been placed for final hearing.
3. The present petition has been filed by a family trust (petitioner no.1) and petitioner nos.2 to 4 claim to be trustees of the said family trust. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under:
(a) The lands acquired are the following two parcels of land in Parel Sewree Division in Mumbai:
| Sr.No. | Particulars | Area (rounded off) |
| (i) | City Survey no.184 admeasuring6,439.29 sq. mtrs. | 6,440 sq. mtrs. |
| (ii) | Adjoining City Survey no.2/184 admeasuring 2,697.50 sq. mtrs. | 2,700 sq. mtrs. |
|
| Total (rounded off) 9,140 sq. mtrs. | |
(b) By show cause notice dated 12 August 1977, the Deputy Collector called upon the petitioners to show cause why the subject property at item no.(i) should not be declared as a slum. By Notification dated 31 August 1977, the said land was declared as a slum under section 4(1) of the Act. By letter dated 20 January 1989, Jijau Prerna Co-operative Housing Society Limited (proposed) respondent no.5 herein, informed the petitioners about the Surveyor's report dated 18 January 1989. Thereafter by show cause notice dated 26 May 1994 issued by the Deputy Collector, the petitioners were called upon to show cause why land at item no.(ii) should not be declared as a slum. The said land was also thereafter declared as a slum by Notification dated 22 June 1994. There is no challenge to the aforesaid Notifications dated 31 August 1977 and 22 June 1994 in respect
