BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE Vs. ADMINISTRATOR AND DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 17 April 2010 of the High Powered Committee of the Government of Maharashtra, dismissing Appeal No. 62 of 2010 of the present petitioners. In the appeal, the petitioners challenged the sanction of a scheme by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on lands bearing CTS No. 106, 106/1 to 5,107/1 to 9, 108(pt), 111(pt), 111/1 to 77, 80 to 132 & 112 (pt) of village Kurla, Hutatma Prabhakar Keluskar Marg (Match Factory Lane), Kurla (West), Mumbai. A Letter of Intent was issued for the whole plot on 29 April 2006. Out of the above plots, plot Nos. 106, 107 and 108 are the plots in question which were earlier owned by respondent No. 8 and were subsequently declared as slums. The other lands are of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The petitioners herein are residents in the slums on private plots owned by respondent No. 8.

(2.) The competent authority declared the above private plots as well as Mumbai Municipal Corporation plots to be slum areas under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'Slum Act') by a notification dated 29 January 2003. The slum dwellers residing on both municipal plots and private plots formed a society in the name of respondent No. 10 and requested respondent No. 8 to implement the slum scheme. Respondent No. 8 is owner-cum-developer and respondent No. 10 being their developer as per their own proposal to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'SRA'). On 30 June 2004, the competent authority decided the eligibility of the slum dwellers of the private plots and held that out of the occupants of 124 structures, occupants of 76 structures were eligible and that out of those, only 19 had given consent which amounted to 25%. Thereupon, on 13 January 2004, the respondent-Municipal Corporation issued Annexure-II for the BMC Plots certifying that out of 367 slum dwellers, 251 were eligible and all of them have given their consent which represented 100% of the eligible slum dwellers. Since there was one proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 8 and 10 for both the plots i.e. BMC plots and private plots, the officers of SRA prepared a report and on taking the consent of the slum dwellers of both BMC plots and private plots, came to the conclusion that the consent was given by 81.32% of the slum dwellers of all the plots taken together for which one common scheme was submitted. On 29 June 2006, SRA approved the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and issued a Letter of Intent in favour of respondent Nos. 8 and 10. On 14 February 2007, SRA approved the building plans for composite development of the Municipal plots as well as private plots. On 9 September 2009, SRA issued a revised Letter of Intent with a condition that respondent Nos. 8 and 10 shall rehabilitate all eligible slum dwellers as held by the competent authority/Municipal Corporation. Condition No. 23 of the Letter of Intent provides that individual agreements of at least 70% of the eligible slum dwellers shall be submitted prior to the Commencement Certificate.

(3.) In the meantime, the petitioners who are residents in the slums on the private plots, were not shifting to the transit tenements. The Deputy Collector, Kurla issued show-cause notices to the petitioners and after hearing them, passed the impugned order dated 25 May 2009 under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act requiring the petitioners to vacate the slums. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai who dismissed the appeal on 13 August 2009 after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court and the petitioners were relegated the alternative remedy for filing an appeal before the Committee. The petitioners, accordingly, filed appeal No. 62 of 2010 before the High Powered Committee on 15 March 2010. The High Powered Committee issued notice to the respondents and respondent Nos. 8 and 10 filed their reply. The petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 8 and 10 filed their written statement. After the hearing concluded on 17 April 2010, by an order dated 17 April 2010, the High Powered Committee dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition which came to be filed on 17 August 2010.