D R PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been placed before the Full Bench of this Court in pursuance of the order of the Divi sion Bench dated 18th March, 2009. Pursu ant to the order dated 9th April, 2009, the entire writ petition has been placed before us along with the applications. We had also directed notice to be issued to learned Advo cate General and learned Assistant Government Pleader (A.G.P.) appearing for the State accepted notice on behalf of learned Advocate General. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Government Resolution (G.R. for short) dated 15th November, 2007. Al though, the other relief pertain to the orders of the Slum Tribunal, passed in the year 19992000, the learned Senior Counsel ap pearing on behalf of the petitioner confined his arguments to the challenge to the G.R. Dated 15th November, 2007. Thus, he sought reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses (a)(i) and (b) of the petition.This petition has been filed by the pe titioner proclaiming himself to be the Chief Promotor of proposed Cooperative Housing Society.

(2.) The First respondent to this petition is State of Maharashtra, second respondent is the High Powered Committee set up under the aforementioned G.R. The third respond ent is the Vice President of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Member of respondent No. 2, High Pow ered Committee. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have been impleaded as formal parties From the statements made in para 1 (a) so also para 2, the principal challenge is to this G.R. The factual background is that a lease in respect of certain plots was granted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpora tion to one Birla Industries Group Charita ble Trust. This is a registered Trust.

(3.) It is stated that upon the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re development) Act, 1971 (for short Slum Act) being enacted, the then promotor of one Indira Society submitted a scheme for devel opment of Slum on the said plots which were leased to the Trust. The Corporation inti mated that the scheme cannot be imple mented since the land was in possession of the Trust and they were the lessees. There after, it is stated that the lease and transfer in favour of the Trust came to be challenged by the said Indira society in the City Civil Court and, thereafter, it is stated that the present petitioner intimated on 13th Novem ber, 1995 to the said Trust that he is desir ous of developing the land and addressed a letter for development of the plot as a noti fied slum. The Municipal Corporation then called upon the petitioner to submit a de tailed plan and seek no objection from the Trust. The petitioner called upon the Trust to give its no objection and the NOC came to be received some time in July 1996.