KUWARBEN CHHABILDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the Slum Tribunal can review its own order when there are no specific powers of review conferred upon it. The Tribunal has reviewed its earlier order which set aside the order of the competent authority declaring the area a slum. As a result of the order being reviewed, it was declared that notification dated 30th October, 1996 pertaining to the property bearing C. T. S. No. 719, 719/1 to 7 and 720, 720/1 to 16 of Village Andheri, Taluka Andheri M. S. D. Mumbai declaring it a slum was valid.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:the petitioners husband was the lessee of land bearing C. T. S. No. 719, 719/1 to 7, 720 and 720/1 to 16 situate at Village Andheri, Taluka Andheri, B. S. D. , Mumbai and was the owner of the chawl constructed by him thereon. This chawl was occupied by tenants who, according to the petitioner, had not paid rent for a long period of time. Suits were, therefore, instituted in the Small Causes Court. On 31st January, 1995, the petitioners tenants applied to respondent No. 3 i. e. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority for declaring the property as a slum area. On 28th August, 1996, respondent No. 3 issued a preliminary notice to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause why the property should not be declared as a slum under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". A reply was filed by the petitioner stating that all basic amenities were available to the residents of the tenaments and details with respect to the amenities were given in the reply. The petitioner also claimed that it was only in order to defeat the suits for eviction that were filed against the tenants that they had approached respondent No. 3 to declare the property as a slum. On 30th August, 1996, the petitioners property was declared a slum area by respondent No. 3. An appeal was filed by the petitioner on 10th December, 1996 before the Slum Tribunal against the declaration of her property as a slum. The petitioner contended therein that the provisions of section 4 of the Act were not attracted as all the basic amenities had been provided by him to the tenants. Some of the tenants were represented before the Tribunal through an Advocate. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner describing the condition of the property and the amenities made available by her to the tenants/residents of the property. The appeal was allowed by respondent No. 2 on 13th February, 1998 and the order passed by respondent No. 3 was set aside.

(3.) A review application was filed at the instance of the President/secretary and Treasurer of respondent No. 4 Association. It was claimed that no site inspection had been carried out on the property prior to the order being passed on 13th February, 1998. The petitioner filed her reply to the review application contending that the review was not maintainable and that the person appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 had no authority to do so. On 20th July, 1998, respondent No. 2 i. e. the Slum Tribunal, allowed the review application holding that it was maintainable. On 11th August, 1998, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1697 of 1998 challenging the order of review dated 20th July, 1998 on the ground that respondent No. 2 had no power to review its own order. The writ petition was disposed of on 9th September, 1998 in terms of the minutes of order signed by the parties. By these minutes, it was agreed that the order passed by the Slum Tribunal in review would be set aside and the Slum Tribunal would hear the application on merits afresh and that he would decide the review application in accordance with law. On 15th March, 1999, the review application was allowed and it was directed that the appeal would be heard. Respondent No. 4 made an application that he may be joined as party to the appeal which was allowed. This writ petition has been filed against the order permitting the review and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in 1997.