MURLIDHAR TECKCHAND GANDHI Vs. T D JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIES of the slum-dwellers for end of life of the drudgery were legislatively responded culminating in the enactment of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearing and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Very often Executive proposed but the Judiciary had to dispose as the executive was not strictly within the legislatively prescribed bounds. From 1976 the executive decisions to declare the present area as a "slum area" were required to be struck down twice being in violation of the provisions of the Act. The first such declaration dated 16-9-1976 was set aside on 13-9-1983 by the Tribunal. The second notification dated 22-10-1986 again met with the same fate in the Tribunal on 19-1-1993. Still the residents living the miserable life of indigence did not lose their heart and continued to pursue their efforts in a hope to see the shadow of the Article 21 and at atleast the ghost of the Directive Principles through their roof-less and holeful huts. This time they have succeeded upto the level of the Tribunal where the impugned declaration dated 21-8-1997 was upheld in the appeal on 12-12-1997. The landlord petitioners are equally tenacious and naturally so as their whole property is at stake. They have questioned the legality and validity of the appellate Tribunals order which has not considered that the declaration was violative of principles of natural justice from the stage of issue of show cause notice. Shri Thorat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had provided the requisite amenities and that there was no case for declaration of the area as "slum area". According to the learned Counsel the matter is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel as in the past twice such declarations have been quashed and set aside and that there was no change in the circumstances to warrant third time declaration at the instance of the tenants/occupants who have not paid even a single paisa by way of rent from 1982. Shri Thorat has repeated that the petitioners have provided all the required basic amenities but the authorities have not considered the reply filed by the petitioners. Shri Thorat has stressed that no particular defects were pointed out in the property. He has questioned the bona fides of the authorities to issue the impugned declaration. The authorities have mechanically issued the show cause notice which was a cyclostyled one and even the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the grounds of appeal and other submissions urged before the Tribunal causing serious prejudice and grave injustice to the petitioners who are deprived of their valuable property in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Constitution of India. Shri Thorat has relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:

(2.) SHRI Govilkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, the Society and the tenants/occupants has strongly supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that inspite of three show cause notices there has been no basic amenities and that the on-the-spot inspection report prepared by the authority has to be accepted as correct as the same was prepared in the presence of the petitioner No. 1 and the chief promoter and other office bearers of the Society representing 339 occupants. The total absence of basic amenities have been recorded and that there is no septic tank for the outlet of the waste from the W. Cs. and that gutters, nallas are open and that the whole population was living the life of untold miseries, says the learned Counsel. He stressed and submitted that this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal which is in the interest and welfare of the occupants.

(3.) SHRI Meckwan, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also supported the impugned order.