Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
UJJAL BHUYAN, MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
Prem Siddha Co-op. Housing Society and another – Appellant
Versus
High Power Committee and others - Respondents
Contempt Petition (L) No. 13112 of 2021, 96 of 2019, Contempt Petition No. 63 of 2017, Writ Petition (L) No. 672 OF 2015, Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2016, 1205, 505, 2595, 2424 of 2015, 396 of 2020
Decided on : 20-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, Mr. Roshil Nichani, Mr. Deep Samant, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala & Mr. Vishal Bhogale i/b. Samir A. Vaidya, Mr. S. U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate a/w Hrushi Narvekar, Mr. Vivek Vashi, Ms. Alya Khan & Ms. Shikha Dharia i/by Vashi and Vashi, Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy with Mr. Arun Panickar & Mr. Mangesh Sawant, Mr. Dinesh Dubey a/w Mr. Rohit Pandey, Ms. Firdaus Moosa i/b Mr. Prakash Mahadik, Mr. Vijay Patil, Mr. Milind More, Mr. Milind More, Additional GP alongwith Mr. S. B. Gore, Mr. Milind More, Additional GP alongwith Mr. Amit Shastri, Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, Mr. Rupali Adhate, Adv.

Point of Law: slum-dwellers who belong to the weaker sections of the society are to be rehabilitated by providing them reasonable housing thereby protecting them from eviction and distress warrants.

Headnote:
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971- Slum rehabilitation scheme of the censused slum – Maintenance of status-quo – Cancelling the scheme - Recording (cancelling) the notified slum rehabilitation scheme (scheme) by reviving notice - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Letter/notice was issued in a hurried manner despite status-quo - whether the scheme of Indira has come to an end? And 2) whether the impugned order of HPC dated 06.03.2014 is sustainable in law as well as on facts?
Finding of the Court:
Scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of such an application made by a proposed society with an application subsequently made by another proposed society relating to the same land - The applicant society has to have 70% support which obviously two societies cannot have. The application received first is to be processed first independently. If it fails to get 70% support, the second application can be considered. The obvious intention is to avoid unhealthy competition between different builders who are interested in supporting such societies. - if the SRA is satisfied that the land in the slum rehabilitation area is being developed by the owner but it has not been developed within the time, then it may determine to develop the land by entrusting it in any recognized agency-remand the matter back to HPC to hear the parties on the legality and validity of the order passed by SRA under section 13(2) of the Slum Act. HPC shall issue notice of hearing to MCGM and after hearing the concerned parties pass appropriate order in accordance with law
Result: Writ petitions disposed of

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

This judgment and order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos.505 of 2015, (L) 672 of 2015, 1205 of 2015, 2424 of 2015, 2595 of 2015, 2421 of 2016 and 396 of 2020.

2. Heard Mr. Nankani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.396 of 2020 and 2421 of 2016, for respondent No.6 in Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015, respondent Nos.7 and 10 in Writ Petition Nos.505 of 2015 and 1205 of 2015 and for respondent No.7 in Writ Petition Nos.2424 of 2015 and 2595 of 2015; Mr. S. U. Kamdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1205 of 2015, 2595 of 2015, for respondent No.7 in Writ Petition No.2421 of 2016, for respondent No.4 in Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015 and for respondent No.9 in Writ Petition Nos.505 of 2015 and 2424 of 2015; Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.505 of 2015 and 2424 of 2015, for respondent No.9 in Writ Petition Nos.2421 of 2016, 1205 of 2015, 2595 of 2015 and for respondent No.8 in Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015; Mr. Dinesh Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.8 in Writ Petition Nos.2421 of 2016, 1205 of 2015, 505 of 2015, 2595 of 2015, 2424 of 2015, 396 of 2020 and for respondent No.7 in Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015; Ms. Firdaus Moosa, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015 and for respondent No.5 in Writ Petition Nos.2421 of 2016, 505 of 2015, 2424 of 2015 and 2595 of 2015; Mr. Vijay Patil, learned counsel for the High Power Committee in all matters; Mr. Milind More, learned AGP for the respondents-State in all the writ petitions; Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, learned counsel for Slum Rehabilitation Authority in all matters; and Ms. Rupali Adhate, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in Writ Petition Nos.2421 of 2016, 1205 of 2015, 505 of 2015, 2595 of 2015 and 2424 of 2015, for respondent No.5 in Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015 and for respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.396 of 2020.

3. In Writ Petition No.505 of 2015, M/s. Om Omega Investment and Properties (‘Om Omega’ hereinafter) is the petitioner. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the High Power Committee-II (HPC) i.e., respondent No.1. Be it stated that by the impugned order dated 06.03.2014, HPC has set aside the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) i.e., respondent No.3. As per the order dated 14.10.2009, respondent No.3 had appointed Om Omega as the developer of the slum rehabilitation scheme of the censused slum admeasuring about 42,995.22 sq.mtrs. and bearing C.S.Nos.20 (pt.), 32 (pt.), 33, 35, 25, 41, 65, 66 and 58 in plot Nos.88 to 104 having about 2270 slum dwellers at Worli, Mumbai.

4. This Court by order dated 09.03.2015 directed maintenance of status-quo by all the parties.

5. It appears that SRA had subsequently issued letter dated 26.03.2015 cancelling the said slum rehabilitation scheme (scheme).

6. By order dated 07.04.2015, this Court directed the respondents not to take further steps pursuant to the above letter dated 26.03.2015 of SRA.

7. Writ Petition (L) No.672 of 2015 has been filed by Shiv Kripa Builders and Developers (‘Shiv Kripa’ hereinafter). Challenge made in this writ petition is to the notice dated 05.03.1999 issued by the SRA as well as the letter dated 26.03.2015 cancelling the scheme.

7.1. By the notice dated 05.03.1999, SRA had directed the petitioner to comply with the directions contained in the said notice failing which the scheme would be considered for recording (cancellation). During the pendency of the writ petition, SRA issued letter dated 26.03.2015 recording (cancelling) the notified slum rehabilitation scheme (scheme) by reviving notice dated 05.03.1999.

8. Writ Petition No.1205 of 2015 has been filed by Indira SRA Cooperative Housing Society (‘Indira’ hereinafter) comprising of over 2270 members. Indira is a society of slum-dwellers registered under the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 388

Point of Law: slum-dwellers who belong to the weaker sections of the society are to be rehabilitated by providing them reasonable housing thereby protecting them from eviction and distress warrants.

Cases Referred (2)