BABAJI SONU KADAM Vs. THE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are members of one Sangam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ( 'the Society '), which is a housing society whose members belong to backward classes. The Society was allotted land for housing its members under a special scheme formulated by the State of Maharashtra for the benefit of persons belonging to backward classes, known as the 'PWR 219 Scheme '. The Society 's building in which its members were residing was constructed on that land in 1979 - 1980, and has since been declared dilapidated and demolished in 2017 pursuant to notices for pulling down the same by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The Society has sought permission from the Respondents for redevelopment of the land. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the decision of the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the State, sanctioning the proposed redevelopment by the Society on the condition that even after redevelopment, ninety percent of the members of the Society must belong to the backward class community, and only ten percent can be from the open category. According to the Petitioners, such a restriction would affect the marketability of the free sale component of the project and would render the redevelopment effectively unviable, leaving the members of the Society homeless. The Petitioners have asserted that there is no legal foundation for imposing such a restriction. The Petitioners have also asserted that the impugned decision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the State has previously permitted redevelopment of similarly placed societies by permitting eighty percent of their members to be from the open category and requiring only 20 percent to be from the backward / reserved category after redevelopment. The Petitioners have accordingly sought directions against the Respondents to permit the Society to redevelop its property on the same condition that after redevelopment, eighty percent of its members can be from the open category and twenty percent from the backward / reserved category.

(3.) The relevant facts in the matter are in brief set out hereunder :