SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Moghiben Bhachubai Gami and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 16593 of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Cherag Balsara, Mr. Yashesh Kamdar, Mr. K. P. Ojha, Mr. Ankit Ojha, Mr. Anchit Ojha, Mr. Kirti Ojha and Mr. Rakesh Dubey
For the Respondent:Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anoshak Daver, Mr. Raghavendra S. Mehrotra and Ms. Samridhi Gholap i/b. Lawkhart Legal, Mr. Karl Tamboly i/by. Mr. Ajaz Ahmed Ansari, Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy), for SRA, Mr. Joel Carlos with Ms. K.H. Mastakar, for MCGM, Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, for AGRC

Only individuals holding a photopass qualify as protected occupiers under the Slum Act, thus excluding municipal tenants from voting in the developer selection process for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Section 13(2) - Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 - Regulation 33(10) - Dispute regarding appointment of developer for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - Petitioners, claiming to be eligible slum dwellers, challenged the appointment of Respondent No.7 as developer, alleging exclusion from voting and improper conduct of meetings - The AGRC upheld the appointment, leading to the present petition. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 19, 46)

(B) Eligibility of Occupiers - Definition of 'occupier' under Section 2(e) of the Slum Act and 'protected occupier' under Section 3(X) - The court emphasized that only those holding a photopass qualify as protected occupiers eligible for the redevelopment scheme, thus excluding municipal tenants from voting rights in the developer selection process. (Paras 28, 30, 38)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, municipal tenants, challenged the appointment of Respondent No.7 as developer for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, claiming exclusion from voting in the General Body Meeting and improper notice of the meeting. (Paras 1, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the AGRC's decision to uphold the developer's appointment was valid and that the petitioners lacked the right to vote due to their status as municipal tenants without photopasses. (Paras 46, 48)

Issues: The main issues were the eligibility of municipal tenants to vote in the developer selection process and the validity of the General Body Meeting's conduct. (Paras 2, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of 'protected occupier' limits eligibility for participation in the redevelopment scheme, affirming that municipal tenants without photopasses do not have voting rights in the selection of the developer. (Paras 30, 38)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed. (Para 47)

JUDGMENT:

1. This is a typical dispute amongst the slum dwellers/structure occupiers over choice of developer for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Petitioners, who claim to be eligible slum dwellers, are aggrieved by the appointment of Respondent No.7-Aquarock Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Accordingly they have challenged Minutes of the Meeting dated 17 January 2023 selecting Respondent No.7 as the developer for the Project. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioners before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee has been rejected by Order dated 5 June 2023, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Also challenged is the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and final Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022 issued by the MCGM. Various other consequential and related prayers are also raised in the petition. Petitioners pray that a fresh General Body Meeting for appointment of developer and architect be conducted by giving opportunity to all the structure occupiers to vote in such meeting.

2. Two principal issues that arise in the petition are:

(i) entitlement of 13 structure occupiers who are tenants of MCGM to participate in the voting process as well as their eligibility to be included in Annexure -II and

(ii) manner of service of Notice and conduct of Meeting dated 17 January 2023 for selection of new developer.

3. To answer the issues, a brief narration of facts would be necessary. Land bearing CTS Nos. 2839 and 2839/1 to 13 situated at Village- Malvani, Taluka- Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District is owned by MCGM, in which there are 45 structures. The adjoining land bearing CTS No.2840 is owned by the Central Government, in which there are 11 structures located. Out of the 45 structures located on land belonging to Municipal Corporation, 16 structures are commercial and 29 are residential. Out of those 16 structures, there are 13 Shops located in structures belonging to MCGM and there is one Municipal Chowkey. MCGM has inducted Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 as municipal tenants in 12 out of those 13 shops. It is Petitioners’ case that the developer who was previously appointed (Manthan Builders) had submitted Annexure -II including names of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 (municipal tenants) as occupiers of their respective structures.

4. By order dated 8 January 2020, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) passed Order under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) terminating the appointment of Manthan Builders and directed conduct of Meeting by the Slum Society under the supervision of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (SRA) for appointing a new developer. It appears that in pursuance of the said directions, a meeting was held by the Slum Society on 23 February 2020 in which, Respondent No.7-Aquarock Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as the developer. A report to that effect was submitted by the Assistant Registrar. Petitioners filed Application No. 210 of 2021 before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) seeking annulment of the General Body Resolution dated 23 February 2020 and sought holding of a fresh General Body Meeting. On 7 January 2022, AGRC passed interim order directing the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, (SRA) to conduct a fresh General Body Meeting of all eligible slum dwellers/members.

5. On 23 August 2022, MCGM issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) for execution of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on its Plot. In addition to several conditions of payment of premium and allotment of PAP tenements (in capacity as land owner), it also directed that in respect of its 13 shops, the developer shall allot 13 road facing commercial structures and shall also construct a municipal chowkey (in capacity as structure owner). On 26 September 2022, MCGM issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top