PRAHLAD BANSI ADSUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to amend so as to impugn the orders of the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner dated 29 September 2009 and 8 January 2010 granted. Verification dispensed with. Amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

(2.) The Petitioners had moved an application seeking the declaration of certain lands comprised in final plot Nos. 566/A, 566/B1, 566/B2 at Ram Panjwani Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400016, as a slum under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Application was dismissed by the Joint Municipal Commissioner (Improvement) by an order dated 6 November 2007. The Petitioners challenged that order in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment dated 18 March 2008 disposed of the petition on the ground that since the Petitioners had an alternate remedy of an Appeal under Section 35, it would be open to the Petitioners to pursue that remedy. The Petitioners thereupon filed an Appeal before the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division under Section 35. The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner dismissed the Appeal on 29 September 2009 holding that the application of the Petitioners that the land in their occupation be declared as a slum was dealt with by the Competent Authority under Section 4(1) and therefore an Appeal would lie before the Tribunal. After the order of the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal by an order dated 7 October 2009 holding that an Appeal before the Tribunal lies under Section 4(3) only against the declaration of an area as a slum. Since there was no notification under Section 4(1), the Tribunal was of the view that the Appeal could not be entertained. The Petitioners thereupon once again filed an Appeal before the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner which was dismissed on 8 January 2010 in view of the previous order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 29 September 2009.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that in the present case both the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner and the Tribunal have arrived at a conflicting view on the scope of the appellate remedy. Counsel submitted that the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner was in error in coming to the conclusion that an appeal would lie before the Tribunal. Section 4(3) makes it clear that an appeal lies before the Tribunal only against the declaration of a slum. Since there is no declaration of slum in this case, an appeal would not lie before the Tribunal. On the other hand, Section 35 provides for a specific remedy of an appeal against an order or direction of the Competent Authority.