VEENA CORP Vs. ASHOK ARJANBHAI JOLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special leave petition arises out of steps taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to remove 11 structures on Kulupwadi Road, Borivali (East, which were allegedly causing a traffic bottleneck. Out of the 11 structures 9 were demolished on 12th February, 2001. One of the structures, however, occupied by Ganesh Flour Mill could not be removed on account of BCCC Suit No.907 of 2001 filed by the said flour mill. Since the structures in question were situated in a slum area, wherein there was a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (S.R.A.) Scheme in respect of CTS P1ot Nos.545 and 546 and the construction of an SRA building was also going on, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner concerned wrote to the Executive Officers of MHADA, with a copy to the Deputy Collector (SRA, to confirm the status of the owners of the two structures and to provide them suitable alternate accommodation in the said SRA Scheme by instructing the Developer accordingly. The Developer, M/S. Veena Corporation, is the petitioner in this Special Leave Petition.

(2.) On 2nd July, 2001, the S.R.A. confirmed the status of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who were allegedly running the above-mentioned flour mill, as being eligible for a residential-cum-commercial allotment. As respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were dissatisfied with the decision of the S.R.A., they filed Writ Petition No. 2213 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court claiming that in lieu of the areas which were under their occupation, they were entitled to two commercial units, one for the flour mill and the other for a godown. The said writ petition was rejected on the finding that the said respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to one unit equal to the total area under their occupation as a commercial-cum-residential unit. Their claim for two commercial units was, therefore, disallowed.

(3.) In Appeal No. 225 of 2003 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench granted leave to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to make an appropriate application to the S.R.A., who were directed to consider afresh as to whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to use the residential-cum-commercial premises to run the flour mill. The S.R.A. reconsidered the matter and reiterated the earlier position holding that the applicants were eligible for one commercial structure only since the same were not used for residential purposes so as to make the occupants eligible as slum dwellers to have a residential unit. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 990 of 2004 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the decision of the S.R.A. dated 12th December, 2003 came to be disposed of on 27th July, 2006, by the following order :-