Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
D.H. WAGHELA, M.S. SONAK, JJ.
Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. & ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 1427 & 2162 of 2015
Decided On : 02-04-2016
The Court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the slum redevelopment scheme and the inclusion of their names in Annexure-II as occupants eligible to avail the benefits of the scheme. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any present legal right or title with regard to the structures/property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8 and further since the Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to MHADA to execute conveyance in respect of the structures/property bearing property CTS Nos. 190/1 to 190/8 in favour of the petitioners, the Court did not deem it either necessary or appropriate to entertain any challenge to the constitutional validity of DCR 33(10) at the behest of such petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were the occupants of structures/property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8, challenged the slum redevelopment scheme and the inclusion of their names in Annexure-II as occupants eligible to avail the benefits of the scheme. The petitioners claimed certain rights in respect of the structures/property and sought a declaration that a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 6 February 2009 issued in favour of respondent no.5 society for implementation of slum redevelopment scheme is illegal, null and void. The petitioners also challenged the inclusion of their names in Annexure-II (a statutory annexure indicating the names of occupants eligible to avail the benefits of slum redevelopment scheme) and sought a declaration that the same is illegal, null and void. Additionally, the petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of DCR 33(10), if interpreted to permit the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to declare any area as “slum area” even beyond the areas specified under the Slum Act or within censused areas or slum rehabilitation areas.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish any present legal right or title with regard to the structures/property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8. The Court also found that the petitioners failed to establish that the said property is not a slum and therefore, no slum redevelopment scheme could ever have been sanctioned in respect of the same. Since the petitioners failed to secure the foundational reliefs, the Court did not deem it necessary or appropriate to decide the petitioners’ contention relating to the constitutional validity of DCR 33 (10).
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had any legal right or title with regard to the structures/property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8? 2. Whether the said property is a slum and therefore, no slum redevelopment scheme could ever have been sanctioned in respect of the same? 3. Whether the constitutional validity of DCR 33(10) could be challenged by the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners failed to establish any present legal right or title with regard to the structures/property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8. 2. The petitioners failed to establish that the said property is not a slum and therefore, no slum redevelopment scheme could ever have been sanctioned in respect of the same. 3. Since the petitioners failed to secure the foundational reliefs, the Court did not deem it necessary or appropriate to decide the petitioners’ contention relating to the constitutional validity of DCR 33 (10).
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the slum redevelopment scheme and the inclusion of their names in Annexure-II as occupants eligible to avail the benefits of the scheme. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any present legal right or title with regard to the structures/property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8 and further since the Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to MHADA to execute conveyance in respect of the structures/property bearing property CTS Nos. 190/1 to 190/8 in favour of the petitioners, the Court did not deem it either necessary or appropriate to entertain any challenge to the constitutional validity of DCR 33(10) at the behest of such petitioners.
M.S. Sonak, J.
1. Rule in both the petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 1 October 2015 in petition for special leave to appeal arising out of Diary No. 30817 of 2015 has requested this Court to dispose of S.W.P. No. 1416 of 2015 (Lodging No.), which corresponds to Writ Petition No. 2162 of 2015 within a period of six months, on its own merits and uninfluenced by the orders impugned in the said petition for special leave to appeal.
3. In these petitions, we are concerned with property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8 and 190/9 (pt.) situated at Pant Nagar Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai400 075, which is admittedly owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), a statutory authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act). There is however, a dispute between the contesting parties as to whether the property bearing CTS No.190/9 (pt.) admeasuring 4355 sq. mtrs., includes, the property bearing CTS Nos. 190/1 to 190/8 or whether the property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8 constitutes different and distinct property. Therefore, unless indicated otherwise, the property bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8 and CTS No.190/9 (pt.) shall hereinafter be referred to as said property for sake of convenience.
4. There is no serious dispute that the MHADA is the owner of the said property. By registered deed of lease dated 11 September 1995, MHADA has leased to Ghatkopar Septic Tank Gurukrupa Cooperative Hsg. Society Ltd. (respondent no.5), property described as bearing CTS No.190/9 (pt.) admeasuring 4355 sq. mtrs at Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East). The lease deed makes reference to Schedule-I as well as plan, in which the leased property has been described and demarcated.
5. The petitioner no.1 claims to be a cooperative housing society promoted by and having as its members petitioner nos.2 to 7. The petitioners, in their capacity as occupants of structures/property which they describe as bearing CTS Nos.190/1 to 190/8, claim certain rights in respect thereof. The structures/property had been earlier allotted by MHADA to its eight sweepers/employees during the tenure of their service. There is no proper documentation in the matter of such allotment. The petitioners claim to have acquired possession and rights from the said eight sweepers/employees. Again, there is no document on record as to the basis of such acquisition. Upon being queried, Mr. Anturkar, learned senior advocate for the petitioners, candidly stated that the petitioners have no document in the matter of acquisition of rights or possession from the said eight sweepers/employees, but he maintained that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioners occupation of the structures/property and further submitted that the rights of the petitioners have been recognised by the MHADA vide office note dated 22 June 2009 and letter dated 21 January 2015, to which due reference will be made in the course of this judgment and order.
6. The respondent nos.5 and 6 (society and developer) have been issued approvals/sanctions for slum redevelopment scheme over the property leased by MHADA to respondent no.5 vide aforesaid registered lease deed dated 11 September 1995. The said respondents, together with the authorities who have issued such approvals/sanctions (remaining respondents) maintain that the leased property, in respect of which the slum redevelopment scheme has been sanctioned, though described at some places as bearing CTS No.190/9 (pt.), includes within its sweep, the structures/property bearing CTS Nos. 190/1 to 190/8, which position according to them, is clear from the reference to the boundaries set out in Schedule-I appended to the registered lease deed dated 11 September 1995 and the plan appended thereto. The respondent nos.5 and 6 maintain that the statutory authorities have quite correctly
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
