The court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding land area and project delays are not suitable for Writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for timely completion of slum rehabilitation projects.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Kamal Khata, J.)

1) By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks the following relief:

“A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling upon the records and proceedings from the file of the Respondent No.1 and after going through the legality, propriety and validity of the Impugned Notices, both dated 22/8/2022 (being Exhibits ‘A’ & ‘B’ hereto), be pleased to quash and set aside the same.”

BRIEF FACTS :

2) The Petitioner is a developer appointed to develop a MHADA owned property bearing CTS No.195 (part) at village Andheri and CTS Nos.30 and 31 (part) along with Nalla land of Village Juhu. The MHADA property was occupied by about 1010 slum dwellers. These slum dwellers formed their respective societies with the following names:

1. Andheri West Loknayak Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited

2. Andheri West Shivaji Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and

3. The New Kapaswadi Co-operative Housing Society.

2.1) These societies approached the Petitioner to implement the slum scheme and rehabilitate the members of these societies. The New Kapaswadi Co-operative Housing Society was merged with Andheri West Shivaji Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited and registered as one society subsequently. The Societies executed various documents (mentioned in the Petition) to appoint the Petitioner as their developer.

2.2) Being appointed as a developer, the Petitioner obtained NOC dated 1st October, 1996. The NOC stated that there were three slum societies, 1010 slum dwellers and covered an area of 40,165.96 sq. mtrs. It excluded the area under Nala, proposed DP road and garden reservations. The MCGM being the planning Authority had also issued D.P. remarks on1st January, 1997 and subsequently on 1st October, 2005.

2.3) As per condition No.7 stated in the Letter of Intent (“LOI”) dated 8th January 1997 a joint demarcation of the boundary of the SR scheme was carried out by CTSO, Vile Parle, CTSO, Andheri and Respondent No.1 on 12th December, 2002 and the area of the land under the slum structures was revised to 59,086.30 sq. mtrs. The CTSO, Andheri issued a demarcation plan dated 31st March, 2003 for a total area of 59,086.30 sq. mtrs. Based on this demarcation plan, the Respondent No.2 revised the NOC dated 6th August, 2003 and issued a revised LOI on 15th October, 2003. The slum scheme was revised from time to time and the last revised LOI was issued on 26th November, 2012. Based on these approvals and Commencement Certificates, the Petitioner completed 6 rehab buildings and obtained Occupation Certificates for the same.

2.4) The Petition narrates the efforts taken by the Petitioner in vacating the slum structures which were spread over the entire property and its claims of having incurred huge costs for securing various approvals from the concerned authorities. The Petitioner also claims to have rehabilitated around 777 eligible occupants occupying slums on the land out of the 1010 eligible occupants in the 6 rehab buildings.

2.5) Aggrieved by the Notices dated 22nd August, 2022 which claim to recover possession of the land within the approved slum rehabilitation scheme, the Petitioner was compelled to file the Petition. The Petitioner claims to have spent a sizeable amount of money for realignment and development of DP Road and realignment of the Nala and draining of the Nala as per the BRIMSTOWAD remarks.

2.6) The Petition also states that despite carrying out substantial construction of rehab component, the Petitioner was not allowed to start construction of the sale building due to a Stop Work Notice issued by Respondent No.2 on 11th November 2011 under instructions of MCGM.

The Petition alleges that, the Respondent No.1 granted a stay to the NOC dated 6th August 2003 which it discovered through a newspaper article on 13th May 2022. It also claims that, the Respondent No.1 had granted no opportunity to submit its say befor