The court emphasized the statutory purpose of the Slum Act as a welfare legislation and rejected the petitioners' challenge to the Section 3C declarations and notifications.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. On 27th October 2023, the previous Advocates pointed out to us in fairness that they would be compelled to take a discharge due to unavoidable circumstances. We permitted this. At that time, Mr. Bhavsar, learned Advocate was present. His appearance is noted in the order sheet. He requested for a long adjournment. Since the matter has been pending since September 2022, and before a Bench presided over by one of us, G.S. Patel J. since 6th February 2023 almost continuously, we declined such a long adjournment. We listed the matter today. Our reasons for declining the adjournment application will be apparent from what follows.

2. Even today Mr. Bhavsar’s only instructions are to seek, yet again, another adjournment of four weeks. There is an ad-interim order running from 6th February 2023. This prejudices not only the 3rd Respondent but, more importantly, at least 100 other slum dwellers, all of whom are off-site, having been evicted from their hutments, and are elsewhere on transit rent.

3. Dr Saraf, learned Advocate General, appears for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”). He expresses a very real apprehension that in a project this small, relative to the size of other SRA projects, if the developer abandons the project, it is the 100 or more other slum dwellers who will be left completely stranded. There will then be great difficulty in providing them rehab accommodation. There will be the issue of unpaid transit rent causing untold hardship to those persons.

4. None of these concerns appear to be of any relevance these Petitioners, all of whom are in pursuit of a narrower and more self-serving objective.

5. Mr. Jagtiani has also made a statement today which we will note a little later. It must be understood in context and particularly in light of the manner in which this matter has unfolded before us from 6th February 2023. Our order of that date reads as follows:

“1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

2. The Petitioners have received notice of eviction. Mr. Khandeparkar states that the structure that the Petitioners occupy is not unauthorised. It is an authorised chawl and the Petitioners are occupants/tenants of that chawl. Further, he submits, the entire structure is in gaothan land. On either or both these counts, he submits, the chawl can never have been included in a slum rehabilitation scheme, because the basis of a slum rehabilitation project is that the structures are unauthorised.

3. The eviction notice is dated 3rd February 2023. It gives the Petitioners 48 hours to vacate.

4. We allow production on Wednesday, 8th February 2023.

5. In the meantime, the impugned notice is not to be acted upon. No demolition of the Petitioners’ structure or their chawl is to take place until further orders of the Court.”

6. This summarizes the submission compactly made before us by the Advocates then appearing for these Petitioners. They claimed that they were not part of a slum but were occupants of a chawl and further, that their chawls were on gaothan lands. For both these reasons, it was submitted, the Petitioners and their structures could not be swept into any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

7. The relevance of this submission can be immediately appreciated from prayer clause (a) of the Petition. It is at page 50 and we set this out along with prayer clauses (b) and (c). The three prayer clauses read thus:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the above mater and after examining the legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Orders dated 6.5.2017 and 7.3.2022 passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 5 respectively (Exhibits S and T respectively hereto).

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby permanently restraining the Re