DYNA ESTATE PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, a developer and a proposed co-operative society of slum dwellers, have filed this writ petition challenging the decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to grant the slum rehabilitation scheme on C.S.no. 599 and 658 at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai admeasuring 113321.54 square meters to Respondent No.5. Petitioners have challenged the rejection of their proposal for 7252 sq. meters out of C.S.No.658. Petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee rejecting their application challenging the orders of the Authority.

(2.) Dyna Estate Private Limited, Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of construction and redevelopment. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha (Proposed), Petitioner No.2- is a proposed co-operative housing society stated to be formed by slum dwellers residing on the plot C.S.No.658(97/B). The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the authorities and officers of Slum Rehabilitation Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971,the Slum Act. Precaution Properties Private Limited, the Respondent No.5, a subsidiary of Shappoorji Pallonji Limited , is a developer whose proposal for implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme on plot Nos.599 and 685 is accepted. Respondent No.6 is Cuffe Parade SRA Co-operative Housing Society Federation (Proposed), which has appointed Respondent No.5 as a developer. Respondent No.7 is the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.

(3.) The land admeasuring 113321.54 sq. meters on C.S.Nos. 599 and 658 at Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai is owned by the State Government. A large number of slum dwellers are residing on these plots. After a decision was taken for an integrated slum rehabilitation scheme of this area, several proceedings filed by different parties have ensued in the last decade and a half. Details of all the proceedings are not necessary. Proceedings have been narrated chronologically only to give a backdrop to the impugned orders. Later, we have culled out the specific facts in the context of the submissions of the parties.