Petitioners' claim to cattle stables was rejected as unauthorized; their non-cooperation with the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme rendered them ineligible for benefits.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. GADKARI, J.

1) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have impugned (i) Order dated 20^th January 2025 (Exh.‘S’) passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (A.G.R.C.) i.e. Respondent No.3; (ii) Order dated 15^th April 2024 (Exh.‘M’) passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) i.e. Respondent No.2 and (iii) Notice dated 23^rd February 2024 (Exh.‘I’) issued by the Deputy Collector (Special Cell), Slum Rehabilitation Authority i.e. Respondent No.4 herein, under Section 33 & 38 of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (S.R. Act) pertaining to the writ structure and for consequential interim reliefs.

2) Heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms. Sawant, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1, Ms. Bhosale, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 4, Ms. Goswami, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Chinoy, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.5. Perused entire record produced before us.

3) Brief facts :

3.1) It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are in use and occupation of part or portion of larger piece of land or property, on which the Respondent No.3 has approved Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (S.R. Scheme) of two societies, namely (i) Ramdas Nagar Joseph Patel Wadi SRA CHS (Proposed) and (ii) Joseph Patel Estate Navdurga Rahiwasi Seva Sangh Sahkari Grihnirman Sanstha (Proposed), i.e. Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 respectively. The Petitioners have their livestock (buffaloes and cows) and are running their stables for last several decades. The Respondent No.5 is appointed and approved to be developer of the said Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of the said two Societies.

3.2) Subject matter of the Petition is a part or portion of larger property admeasuring 8047.9 sq.mtrs., situated on various CTS numbers in village Versova, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District. The Petitioner No.1’s cattle stable (Tabela) is numbered as Structure No. 420 (Stable structure) and other structures facilitating ancillary use of the structure No. 420, being godown and residential structure of the Petitioner No.1, identified on the said plan as Structure Nos. 415 to 418. The Petitioner No.2’s cattle stable (Tabela), which was constructed by his forefather, comprises of one godown and several residential rooms as well as cattle shed (Tabela) for which he has paid Assessment Tax since the year 1961-62. The said structures of Petitioner No.2 are identified and numbered as Structure Nos. 404, 405, 409, 410, 414 & 419 (Tabela).

3.3) That, prior to 1961 the grandfather of Petitioner No.1 Shri Shivnath Yadav and similarly father of Petitioner No.2 were in occupation and possession of piece and parcel of land bearing CTS No. 1165 of village Versova, Taluka Andheri and they were engaged in the business of Dairy Farming by keeping milching cattle such as buffaloes and cows. It is the case of the Petitioners that, their predecessors constructed their respective cattle sheds of 72 and 10 cattle respectively, for which the cattle Controller of State granted license in the year 1976. The area of cattle sheds is admeasuring 2860 and 1333 sq.ft. respectively. The said cattle sheds were duly assessed in the name of their predecessors prior to datum line of 1961-62.

3.4) That, by way of ancillary use to facilitate storage of fodder for the 72 cattle, the Petitioner No.1 has also constructed two godowns admeasuring 300 sq. feet and two residential structures adjoining thereto admeasuring 455 sq.ft.. The said godowns and residential structures are also in existence prior to 1961-62 and are assessed by the concerned Authority of the Corporation. The father of Petitioner No.2 has also similarly constructed one godown and residential rooms. The said cattle sheds, godowns and residential structures are the subject matter of present Petition (writ structures).

3.5) It is the case of the Petitioners that, the office of Additional Collector, Mumbai has levied ‘Non