SAKSHI SHANKAR SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is filed by individuals who have independent reliefs against the Developer and possibly the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA"). There is no question of them intervening in the Writ Petition filed by the society. It is inconceivable that by "intervening" and "participating" these persons can seek substantive relief against either the SRA or the Developer. They must file their own Petition. The Interim Application is dismissed. This is however without prejudice to their rights and contentions which may be taken up in a properly instituted separate Writ Petition. The Interim Application is to be finally numbered for statistical purposes.

(2.) The Applicants say that their possession must be protected. There is no prayer for such a relief. An interventionist is, we are supposed to believe, entitled to substantive injunctive relief against the Developer and the SRA without there being a prayer, without there being a substantive proceeding and just on a statement made across the bar. These Applicants are, apparently, facing eviction proceedings under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995. Those must continue. We say this because to our question as to who put them in possession, the only answer we get from the Developer, the SRA and everybody else is "not I". While we dictate this, we are now told that the Developer put these persons into possession. We do not understand how that could be because these are not free sale units at all. They are what are called 'Permanent Transit Camps' ("PTC"). A proposal to allow these units to be converted to free sale units has not yet been approved and yet the Developer has entered into multiple registered agreements for these units, taken consideration, and parted with possession.

(3.) What the Applicants have done in regard to the Developer is unclear and is not stated. To protect 'possession' as it is called in these circumstances, is simply not possible.