IMAM MIRASAHEB NADAF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2001 passed in Appeal No. 22 of 2001 by the maharashtra Slum Areas (I. C and R.) Tribunal, mumbai. The challenge to the impugned order is on the two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner had raised the specific plea as regards the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements under Section 4 (1) before issuing the declaration under the Maharashtra Slum areas (Improvement, Clearance and redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") in relation to the area in question and the lower appellate authority failed to consider the same and thereby failed to exercise its jurisdiction in that regard, which is otherwise required to be exercised. Secondly, that the lower appellate authority also failed to decide the issue pertaining to the non-service of the notice relating to the said declaration which was required to be served in terms of the procedure prescribed for the purpose under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Other Manner of Publication of Declaration)Rules, 1971, (hereinafter called as "the said rules" ).

(3.) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act came to be issued in relation to the various areas including the area comprised of the property No. 129/11, of the petitioner on 18th March, 1978. Sometimes in November, 1998, some unknown persons commenced measurement of the petitioner's property, and on inquiry with them, the petitioner came to know about the said declaration. The petitioner, after obtaining a copy of the said notification, filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 28th June, 1999 along with the application for condonation of delay as the appeal was otherwise required to be flied within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal condoned the delay holding that the respondents had not established that the petitioner was aware about the declaration of the area in question as the slum area at any date earlier to the date disclosed by him as the date of the knowledge about the said declaration. The said order, was passed on 18th January, 2001. The respondents did not challenge the said order and it attained finality for all purposes. The Tribunal, however, after hearing both the parties on merits, dismissed the appeal holding that it is the contention of the respondents that the notice was issued to the petitioner though the records in respect of issuance of such notice are not traceable besides the notice was published at the Khotkuwa Road under panchanama, and secondly that the family members of the petitioner have entered into an agreement with the respondent-Slum rehabilitation Authority in relation to an alternative accommodation and that therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to file an appeal.