VIVEK CHANDRAKANT MAYEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal, Mumbai upholding the validity of a notification dated 26 February 2010 declaring certain lands as a slum area. The land in question, bears Plot No.66, TPS-IV of Mahim Division of Dadar and admeasures 1929.78 sq.mtrs. Since the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the original notification dated 26 February 2010 under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, G-North Ward of the Municipal Corporation. The Petitioners are 29 occupants of the land who seek to question the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the Petitioners are as follows:

(3.) On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that (i) The title to the land vests in the Municipal Corporation and the land has been reserved for housing the dishoused; (ii) The jurisdictional requirement contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 for the development of a land as a slum area has been duly established to the satisfaction of the competent authority and several reports which are on the record would indicate that there was a due application of mind to the nature of amenities provided on the land to the occupants and to the health, safety and convenience of the occupants; (iii) As a matter of fact, the structures on the land are not cessed A-Category structures and hence, a development under DCR 33(7) could not be permissible. All the occupants are in occupation of structures which are tolerated by the Municipal Corporation and they would be entitled to alternate accommodation in the Scheme under DCR 33(10); (iv) The scheme of Section 4 provides for a hearing before the Tribunal to persons aggrieved by a declaration under Section 4(1) and as a matter of fact, the Petitioners were heard in their challenge to the declaration of the slum. There is no substance in the contention that the Petitioners would be entitled to anything in excess of 300 sq.ft. under DCR 33(7)since there is no averment to the effect that the Petitioners are in occupation of an excess area.