Point of Law : Building belonging to backward class people - Dilapidated and demolished building - Redevelopment of the land - Society by itself or through its developer shall be entitled to deal with the premises in the sale component in the ratio of eighty percent in the open/non backward category and twenty percent to the backward community.

ORDER :

S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are members of one Sangam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (‘the Society’), which is a housing society whose members belong to backward classes. The Society was allotted land for housing its members under a special scheme formulated by the State of Maharashtra for the benefit of persons belonging to backward classes, known as the ‘PWR 219 Scheme’. The Society’s building in which its members were residing was constructed on that land in 1979 – 1980, and has since been declared dilapidated and demolished in 2017 pursuant to notices for pulling down the same by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The Society has sought permission from the Respondents for redevelopment of the land. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the decision of the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the State, sanctioning the proposed redevelopment by the Society on the condition that even after redevelopment, ninety percent of the members of the Society must belong to the backward class community, and only ten percent can be from the open category. According to the Petitioners, such a restriction would affect the marketability of the free sale component of the project and would render the redevelopment effectively unviable, leaving the members of the Society homeless. The Petitioners have asserted that there is no legal foundation for imposing such a restriction. The Petitioners have also asserted that the impugned decision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the State has previously permitted redevelopment of similarly placed societies by permitting eighty percent of their members to be from the open category and requiring only 20 percent to be from the backward/reserved category after redevelopment. The Petitioners have accordingly sought directions against the Respondents to permit the Society to redevelop its property on the same condition that after redevelopment, eighty percent of its members can be from the open category and twenty percent from the backward/reserved category.

3. The relevant facts in the matter are in brief set out hereunder :

3.1 Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are members of the Society. Petitioner No. 4 is the developer appointed by the Society for redevelopment of its property.

3.2 Respondent No. 1 is the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District. Respondent No. 2 is the Assistant Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department. Respondent No. 3 is the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department. Respondent No. 4 is the State of Maharashtra, through the Revenue and Forest Department.

3.3 Respondent No. 4, with a view to provide housing to persons belonging to the backward class, formulated the PWR-219 Scheme.

3.4 The Society has thirty – six members, including Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, all of whom are from the backward community. By an order dated 31st December 1966, Respondent No. 1 allotted land admeasuring 1,442 square meters bearing Plot Nos. 31 and 32 forming part of Survey No. 236A, City Survey No. 196 of Village Ghatkopar, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District (‘the Land”) to the Society under the PWR 219 Scheme for constructing a residential building thereon to house its members. The Society constructed a residential building on the Land in the year 1979-80. Since then, the members of the Society were in occupation of their respective tenements in the building.

3.5 The condition of the building deteriorated over a span of forty – five years. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued notices dated 16th September 2015 and 21st September 2016 under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, declaring the building to be dilapi