LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-454

SHAKIL MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 28, 2023
Shakil Mohammed Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the original 37 Petitioners, Petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 37 have been deleted. Respondent No. 5 is the original developer, Mithila Developers. Respondent No. 6 Aashirwad Shelaji is the changed or newly appointed developer. Respondent No. 4 is the Society called Mithila Heights CHSL. The property in question straddles several CTS Numbers at Kamathipura Byculla. The property is owned by the MCGM. The old structure was known as Bengali House. The rights of the original Petitioners as tenants are not disputed although there is some suggestion that Petitioner No. 18 (not one of those deleted) died on 6/7/2018 before the Petition was filed and that his signature on the Petition is not genuine.

(2.) The complaint is the usual one of not being paid transit rent and of delay in development.

(3.) To begin with, we are constrained to observe that this is an unacceptable state of affairs from every perspective that when it comes to development supervised by the MCGM, such as the present one, where MCGM is the owner of the building that goes into redevelopment, there is no structured development supervision system in place. For their part, SRA and MHADA have now developed fairly detailed and sophisticated systems for monitoring development. We see no reason why MCGM should be excluded from this discipline. Just two or three areas of attention will suffice. SRA and MHADA now insist as a matter of routine that transit rent as determined by the authorities payable to those eligible must be deposited in advance whether it is for 12 months or 24 months. The MCGM does not do so. It does not even decide the amount of transit rent although this is fairly easily done depending on the Ready reckoner rates for a given year and the given area. The MCGM instead leaves it to the developer and the society, if there is one, and this process invariably leads to ambiguity and confusion. It sometimes causes conflicting claims amongst eligible occupants. MCGM also needs to have in place a system of biometric identification and Aadhaar-based identification so that people do not illicitly traffic in rehab units. Those other two public authorities also enforce the execution of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements ("PAAAs") so that these are not only properly executed but are registered as required by law. In this case, for example, we are told that some PAAAs have only been notarized. The result of this lack of supervision is that inconsistencies and disruptions abound. Most importantly from the perspective of a writ court, there are bound to be inequalities because some persons may succeed in getting PAAAs that are more favourable to them than others. That is to be avoided at all costs. The SRA and MHADA also have systems to ensure that the work of development of rehab or reconstructed premises continues on a specified schedule and if not, the developer is held responsible, given a warning and if there is no improvement is forced to be substituted. We see no reason why the MCGM should be excluded from this practice either.