RAGHAVENDRA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) taken in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) sanctioning new Road Line (RL) of 13.40 meters width in the land being developed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the resolution adopted by the Administrator of MCGM on 26/9/2024 and decisions communicated vide various letters for implementation of decision of sanction of RL have been challenged by the Petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the Petition are that Petitioner purchased property bearing CTS No.610A/1B/1 and 610A/1B/2 admeasuring 6344.04 sq.mtrs. at Village-Malad, Gen. A. K. Vaidya Marg, Mumbai-400 097. On 8/2/2005 the land was occupied partly by slum dwellers and partly by tenants. SRA sanctioned layout comprising of construction of 6 buildings, which included development of land admeasuring 1375 sq.mtrs., which was affected by slum. Later SRA approved amalgamation of slum and non-slum portions of the plot and issued LoI dtd. 20/4/2022. This is how SRA became the planning authority in respect of the entire plot of land. Petitioner is in the process of completing the development of various buildings on the said plot. Several buildings undertaken by the Petitioner are complete and construction of some of them is under progress. On 7/12/2023, Respondent No.5-Developer and Respondent No.4- Sahayog SRA Co-operative Housing Society (the Society) submitted proposal to the SRA for sanctioning Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR Scheme) on adjoining plot of land bearing CTS No.677/A/1(part). The Executive Engineer (Traffic and Co-ordination) WS of MCGM sought remarks from SRA on 31/7/2024. By letter dtd. 5/8/2024, Executive Engineer of SRA recommended the proposal for new RL holding that the proposed road was necessary for implementation of SR Scheme on the adjoining plot. On 26/8/2024, a proposal for declaration of public street was put up before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Traffic. The Municipal Commissioner sanctioned the proposal on 21/9/2024. The MCGM thereafter acted as Administrator and passed resolution No.592 authorizing the Municipal Commissioner to exercise powers under Sec. 291(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act). The Deputy Chief Engineer (Traffic) of MCGM submitted a plan for declaration of public street on 1/10/2024. On 3/10/2024, the Executive Engineer (Traffic and Coordination) W.S. forwarded the sanctioned RL plan for necessary action to various departments of the MCGM. On the basis of new road approval, the SR scheme of Respondent No.4-Society was accepted by SRA on 11/10/2024. Petitioner made representations on 8/11/2024 and 14/11/2024. In response to Petitioner's representations, Deputy Chief Engineer, SRA issued letter to MCGM stating that the factum of implementation of SR Scheme on the plot of the Petitioner was erroneously missed out while recommending sanction of RL road by the SRA in the letter dtd. 5/8/2024. However, despite accepting mistake, SRA and MCGM have not yet deleted the RL road passing through Petitioner's land and accordingly Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Chinoy, the learned senior advocate appearing for Petitioner, who would submit that the impugned decision of sanctioning RL cutting through Petitioner's plot is taken in gross violation of principles natural justice as the Petitioner was never heard before taking impugned decision. That in any case, the impugned decision suffers from gross non- application of mind as both the SRA and MCGM have not considered factum of the proposed RL cutting through buildings constructed / to be constructed by the Petitioner. That the SRA has admitted the folly committed by it by issuing written communication to MCGM. Though the MCGM has showed willingness to correct the mistake, no action has actually taken and sanctioned RL continues to be reflected thereby seriously affecting development of plot by the Petitioner. He would submit that since the very decision of sanctioning the RL is ab initio void, the same deserves to be set aside in its entirety. That plot of Respondent No.4-Society being landlocked itself is a misrepresentation as another road is available for approaching that Plot. That the same developer is developing adjoining plot and it is always possible for that developer to provide for access road through his own plots rather than insisting on creation of new road from Petitioner's Plot, affecting the construction thereon. Mr. Chinoy accordingly pray for allowing the Petition.