SAJID ABDUL SATTAR URANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten petitioners before the Court have challenged in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution a scheme for redevelopment under DCR 33(7) which has been sanctioned by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The petitioners are occupants of a cessed structure on CS 1101, Khandia Street of Byculla Division in the "E" Ward of Mumbai. MHADA has granted its NOC on 4 November 2009 for redevelopment. MHADA has since permitted a composite redevelopment of two adjacent properties, CS 1101 and CS 1102 under DCR 33(7). There were seventeen tenants/occupants on CS 1101, while there were eighty eight tenants/occupants of CS 1102. All the occupants of CS 1102 vacated their structures, while out of the seventeen occupants of CS 1101, seven have vacated. Only the ten petitioners remain. In the meantime, development has commenced and construction has proceeded upto the fifteenth floor. The AGP has informed the Court that MHADA permitted the amalgamation of CS 1101 and CS 1102 on 5 January 2010 so as to facilitate a composite redevelopment; and the Municipal Corporation sanctioned the amalgamation of the two properties on 8 October 2010.

(2.) The basic grievance of the petitioners, during the course of the hearing, was that they had not furnished their consents to the scheme for redevelopment. The Executive Engineer of the Repair Board passed an order on 1 June 2011 dealing with the grievance of the petitioners that they had not furnished their consents. The Executive Engineer noted that before issuing an NOC for its redevelopment, his office has verified the consents and that at the time of verification, the tenants had signed their consents once again. Moreover, the proceedings are stated to have been video recorded. Accordingly, notices were issued under section 95-A of the MHADA Act, 1976 to the petitioners to vacate their structures.

(3.) Each of the petitioners is to be allotted permanent alternate accommodation admeasuring 300 sq.ft in the newly constructed building free of cost. The petitioners are presently in occupation of areas less than 300 sq.ft. Under DCR 33(7) they would be allotted an area of 300 sq.ft. The contention of the petitioners that they had not consented to the redevelopment scheme is opposed by the respondents. The developer who filed an affidavit has deposed to the process that was followed in recording the original consents and in the process of reverifica-tion. The AGP appearing on behalf of the MHADA has also stated before the Court that even after the original not arised consents are produced before MHADA, the Authority follows the procedure of reveri-fying the consents in the course of a site inspection and that each of the occupants is required to sign the photocopy of the agreement before the concerned Officer.