Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar, Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.
Deena Pramod Baldota - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Housing Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Lodging) No.19626 OF 2022
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Slum Act - Challenge to Notification - Section 14(1) - CTS No.355 (part), 355/267 to 307, 355/352 to 357, 355/411 to 443, 491 (Part), 491/1 to 4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act), including Section 3B(4)(c) and (e), Section 12(10), and Section 13(1). The court highlighted the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the property, the starting point for commencement of 'reasonable time' for redevelopment, and the procedure for acquisition under Section 14 of the Slum Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the notification issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra under section 14(1) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act), acquiring the Petitioner's land. The Petitioner claimed a preferential right to redevelop the property and challenged the acquisition on the grounds of lack of notice, absence of a reasoned order, and the State Government's failure to consider objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner had ample knowledge of the consequences of the declaration of the subject property as a slum and had failed to submit a redevelopment scheme despite expressing willingness to do so. The court also noted the neglect by the owners, the lack of basic amenities, and the Petitioner's financial inability to undertake redevelopment. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that public interest demanded the acquisition proceedings to proceed for the benefit of the slum dwellers.
Issues: The issues included the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the property, the starting point for commencement of 'reasonable time' for redevelopment, the procedure for acquisition under Section 14 of the Slum Act, and the neglect by the owners resulting in the lack of basic amenities for the slum dwellers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate a genuine and bonafide desire to redevelop the property and that the overwhelming facts justified the acquisition proceedings. The court also emphasized the need to balance the competing rights of the landowner and the slum dwellers, and the public interest in the timely rehabilitation of the slum dwellers.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the impugned Notification acquiring the subject property, stating that public interest demanded the acquisition proceedings to proceed for the benefit of the slum dwellers.
No, the judgment does not establish or hold that it is mandatory for the CEO to conduct a site visit before declaration of any area under Section 3C of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
JUDGMENT :
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and is heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner challenges the notification dated 26/5/2022 issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra under section 14(1) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)Act, 1971 (Slum Act), acquiring Petitioner's land bearing CTS No.355 (part), 355/267 to 307, 355/352 to 357, 355/411 to 443, 491 (Part), 491/1 to 4 admeasuring near about 5115.2 sq. meters situated at village Kurar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District.
3. The factual matrix of the matter is as under:
Petitioner is owner of the property which is subject matter of the impugned notification dated 26/5/2022. On 2/9/1976 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Slum Act declaring the subject property as "slum", which was challenged by the Petitioner, on 7/11/2011, before the Slum Tribunal, the proceeding whereof is still pending. On 10/8/2015, the Society of slum dwellers ‘Sahyog SRA CHS (Proposed)”-Respondent No 4 submitted an application to the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO/SRA) requesting the CEO, SRA to acquire the subject property under Section 14(1) of Slum Act for implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme under Development Control Regulation 33(10) through one Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd. On 1/10/2015, the Deputy Collector, SRA directed the City Survey Officer, Malad to undertake joint measurement and submit a report, which was submitted on 11/7/2016. On 16/8/2016, Respondent No.4-Society filed an Application before CEO/SRA seeking declaration of the subject property as “slum rehabilitation area” under Section 3C of the Slum Act. Pursuant to the application, the Deputy Collector/SRA visited the subject property on 8/9/2016.
4. On 27/9/2016 public notice was issued by the office of the SRA inviting suggestions and objections to declaration of the subject property as slum rehabilitation area under section 3C(1) of the Slum Act. Detailed written objections was submitted by Petitioner on 24/10/2016 opposing the declaration of the subject property as “slum rehabilitation area”. On 17/6/2017 notification was issued declaring the subject property as ‘slum rehabilitation area’, which was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Appeal No.9/2017 before the Slum Tribunal. On 17/12/2019 the said appeal was dismissed by the Slum Tribunal, confirming the subject property as slum rehabilitation area. On 11/8/2021 notice under section 14(1) of the Slum Act was issued by the Deputy Collector /SRA calling upon the Petitioner to remain present for hearing. On 18/10/2021 detailed representation was submitted by the Petitioner stating that she is ready and willing to undertake redevelopment of the subject property and as the owner of the suit property she had preferential right to undertake redevelopment in view of the statutory provisions of the Slum Act and judgments of this Court in the matter of Anil Gulabdas Shah v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.974/1999 and Writ Petition No.131/2000 and in the matter of Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018(4) BCR 618. On 29/11/2021 the CEO/SRA passed an order rejecting the objection raised by the Petitioner and recommended the acquisition of the suit property under section 14(1) of the Slum Act. Against the said recommendation, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee on 27/12/2021, which is pending. On 27/1/2022, Petitioner addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra reiterating her readiness and willingness to undertake redevelopment of the suit property and requested to defer consideration of recommendation of Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated 29/11/2021 till final adjudication of the Appeal pending before the committee. On 26/5/2022 notification was issued by the Housing
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the property under the Slum Act, the starting point for commencement of 'reasonable time' for rede....
The court reaffirmed a landowner's preferential right to redevelop slum areas under the Maharashtra Slum Act, necessitating notice to the owner before acquisition proceedings, rendering subsequent ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to submit a redevelopment scheme, despite an opportunity granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, did not entitle the petitio....
The court established that a notice under Section 13 is mandatory for the 120-day period to commence, affirming the landowner's preferential right to develop slum rehabilitation areas.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once land is acquired by the State Government under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, it vests absolutely in the State Government free from all ....
State cannot acquire private land for slum rehabilitation without recognizing and allowing landowners' preferential rights to develop the land.
The court reaffirmed that the preferential right of a landowner over slum redevelopment schemes must be respected before any acquisition is initiated under relevant legislation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
