BALRAJ TULSIDAS PILLAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners challenge the notice dated 18/06/1996 issued by the respondent Government under section 14 (1) of the Maharashtra Slum areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act", on two grounds. Firstly, that considering the provisions of section 14 (1) of the said Act, the acquisition is permissible of the area adjoining to the slum area and not the slum area itself and the land in question being slum area itself, the decision to acquire the land under section 14 (1) of the said Act is bad in law; Secondly, that the notice under section 14 (1) of the said Act has been issued without following the necessary procedure prescribed under the said Act to invoke the powers under section 14 (1) of the said Act.

(3.) AS regards the first ground of challenge, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has drawn attention to the unreported decision of the Division Bench in the matter of (Akhtar Hasan Rizvi v. The Additional collector (Enc) and Controller of Slums and others), in Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1999 delivered on 3/10/2000 wherein, it has been held that "a conjoint reading of sections 4, 11, 12 and 14, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the land over which the slum is situate may be acquired under the provisions of the Slum Act. In fact, without acquiring the slum area properly, in accordance with law, it would be impossible to give effect to any scheme under the Slum Act. We are, therefore, of the considered view that under section 14 (1), the State Government may acquire the land on which the slum exists, and the section must be so read as to include any land within adjoining or surrounded by slum area. " Apparently, the issue as to whether the area comprised under the slum area itself can be acquired in terms of the provisions contained in section 14 (1) of the said Act or not has been well settled by the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court and considering the same, the first ground of challenge to the acquisition of the land is no more available to the petitioners in the case in hand. The first ground of challenge is, therefore, rejected.