SHANTILAL M. SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail the order dtd. 6/9/2022 in proceedings under Sec. 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, 'MHADA Act ') and further seek zxdirections to decide the representation made by the petitioner to the Authority. The landlord and the Developer of the concerned property proposed redevelopment of the property C.S.No. 2879, 2881 and 2883 of Bhuleshwar Division of VP Road and Ardeshir Dadi Street Building known as "Annapurna Sadan ", "Prabhu Bavan " and "Pathak Building ". The petitioners are the tenants of shop Nos.1,2,7 and 22 doing the business of sale of heavy duty metal pipes. The dispute, it appears, is that the petitioners were tenants on the ground foor. They are being allotted shops in redeveloped property on ground and frst foor.

(2.) Mr. Mandon, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 has mischievously reduced the area allocated to petitioners and has tried to convert the shop premises in offce premises. The application preferred by respondent No.3 and approved by respondent No.2 shows the area to be allocated to the petitioners in the redevelopment project. Now, the said plan is changed and sought to be revised, thereby reducing the area allocated to the petitioners on the ground foor and increasing the area on the frst foor. The same is illegal. It will not be possible for the petitioners to do the business on the frst foor. The length of the pipes dealt with by the petitioners is more than 25 to 30 feet and the width of the shop is not more than 21 feet. It will not be possible for the petitioners to run the business. The learned Senior Advocate submits that respondent No.3 has committed illegality. The respondent No.3 has not entered into an Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as, 'PAAA ') nor other document including the Development Agreement and the consent of the petitioners has not been obtained. No document has been executed or signed by the petitioners with respondent No.3 till date in connection with the redevelopment. The respondent No.3 has brought the JCB for demolition of building and causing the petitioners to vacate. The respondent No.3 was unable to demolish the said shop. However, the respondent No.3 damaged the ceiling of the petitioners ' shop.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not intend to resist the redevelopment process. The respondent No.3 has not entered into the PAAA as is mandated in redevelopment norms. After numerous follow ups, respondent No.3 shared the draft PAAA with the petitioners. The area allotted to the petitioners as per the MHADA approved plans were drastically different. The area has been reallocated by changing the dimensions of the shop on the frst foor and allocated the offce premises instead of shop premises. The dimensions mentioned in the draft PAAA as regards the shop makes it virtually impossible for the petitioners to conduct the business of metal pipes. The MHADA was specifcally directed by this Court under its order dtd. 24/8/2022 in Writ Petition (L) No. 26760 of 2022 to decide the 95 A proceedings and the representation fled by the petitioners simultaneously. However, MHADA failed to decide the representation on the ground that it is not within its domain. The said observation is illegal. When this Court has directed the MHADA to decide the representation, it was duty bound to take decision upon the same along with proceedings under Sec. 95A of the MHADA Act. The petitioners are not obstructing the redevelopment, but only seeking what is duly receivable to them. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Vishnu Masurkar v. The Municipal Commissioner, MCGM and Anr. Writ Petition No. 231 of 2016 Dtd. 15/11/2019.