SAKHARAM ARJUN GHADIGAONKAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings have been instituted before the Court by seven persons acting for themselves and for and on behalf of 217 residents. The Petition has been verified by the Seventh Petitioner, who is the son of the First Petitioner, acting as a Constituted Attorney. The subject matter of these proceedings relates to the redevelopment of a property known as Haji Kasam Chawls. This cluster of buildings consists of Chawls 59, 60 and 60A and Building Nos.(6A), 368, 386(10/18), 346/364, 364A, 364-B, 368-A and 368-B situated on land comprising in City Survey 71 (part), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Currey Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai. The Fourth Respondent is the owner and developer of the property which consisted of six buildings constructed the Court is informed about 140 years ago. All the buildings are admittedly old and dilapidated. There were as many as 736 occupants of which 627 were comprised in Cessed-A category structures, 85 were non-cessed structures and 24 were slum structures.

(2.) Initially, on 19 April 2007, an agreement was entered into between the Fourth Respondent and the proposed Co-operative Housing Society representing the occupants of the chawl structures. The agreement inter alia envisaged the provision of alternate accommodation admeasuring 225 sq.ft. in addition to which there was a provision for a dry balcony of 75 sq.ft. This was followed by a further agreement dated 5 June 2007 between the developer and the proposed society. While reiterating in clause (1) that the occupants of some of the buildings will be provided alternate accommodation admeasuring 225 sq.ft. and a dry balcony of 75 sq.ft., clause 17 of the agreement stipulated that if before the commencement of construction any additional benefit came to be provided in respect of the permissible area under the relevant Regulations, the benefit of such concession would be extended to the occupants. According to the developer, in 2007 over 90% of the occupants gave their consents for redevelopment. On 28 June 2008, MHADA issued an NOC for redevelopment under DCR 33(7).

(3.) On 2 March 2009, as a result of a notification issued by the State Government, the eligible area for rehabilitation of occupants under DCR 33(7) was enhanced from 225 sq.ft. to 300 sq.ft., it being stipulated that in the case of redevelopment schemes already in progress where construction had not been completed upto the plinth level, the proposal may be converted in accordance with the modified regulations at the option of the project proponent. Simultaneously, DCR 33(9) came to be substituted. Whereas DCR 33(7) relates to the redevelopment of cessed structures, DCR 33(9) deals with reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings/Urban Renewal Schemes and provides as follows: