Petitioner may pursue actions against unauthorized construction through regulatory authorities under the MRTP Act, with legal processes established for resolution.

ORDER

1. Delay condoned. 2. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, alleging that the construction activity carried out by respondent No.13 – M/s Mighty Engineers & Developers was illegal, as the two floors, which were shown as fire refugee area, had been converted into apartments. 3. The Writ Petition was purportedly filed in public Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2023.09.27 19:15:06 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified interest. Before the High Court, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority filed an affidavit, of which it would be relevant to quote para Nos.8 and 9 : “8. I say that so far as the allegations of the Petitioners about the refuge area on 7^th and 14^th floor is concerned, I say that after inspection of the subject property on the basis of the complaint made by the Petitioners, the office of the answering Respondents found (1) refuge area on 7^th floor is not as per approved plan and it found that one flat is constructed in the refuge area and even the same is occupied by one occupant. (2) On the 14^th floor, it is found that society room is constructed in part portion of refuge area. Also toilet is found in refuge area. I say that, the office of the answering Respondents issued Notice U/sec.51(1) of the MRTP Act on 03.11.2016, directing the Respondent No.13 developer to remove the said unauthorized construction in the refuge area. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-IT-R/1 is a copy of said Notice dated 03.11.2016 issued by the answering Respondents office to the developer. 9. I say that even the office of the answering Respondents lodged FIR No.28/2017 U/sec.53(7) of the MRTP Act against the Respondent No.13 developer on 29.p6.20178 with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai.” 4. Taking note of the above-quoted stand taken by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition vide impugned order dated 22.12.2022 in the following terms: “11. Be that as it may, in strict sense, the present Petition cannot be considered as a PIL. Moreover, affidavit filed by the SRA suggests that initially, refugee area on the 7^th floor was not as per the plan and was occupied by one tenement and on 14^th floor. It was found that society office is constructed at part of the refugee area. A notice was issued under Section 53(7) of the said Act against Respondent No.13. Thereafter, a fresh inspection was made and refugee area has been maintained. As far as the illegality with regard to the merging of the POP tenements free sale wing is concerned, SRA on affidavit has stated that notice under Section 53(1) of the said Act was issued. So also, FIR has been issued. Respondent-SRA can proceed ahead with further action pursuant to the notice under Section 53(1) of the said Act and the FIR that has been filed in accordance with law and may take steps thereto.” 5. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant Special Leave Petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have carefully perused the material placed on record. In view of the observations made by the High Court, i.e., (i) the Slum Rehabilitation Authority can proceed against respondent No.13 under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, `the MRTP Act’); and (ii) that an FIR has already been registered in this regard, it appears to us that the petitioner can effectively approach the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to take the necessary action in a time bound manner. In the event that no action is taken, the petitioner will always be at liberty to approach the High Court again. 7. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV)