Vide Order dated 11th January, 2010 Rule was granted in those petitions.
205 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.
The said plots on which the aforesaid three slums are situated are owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Respondent number 4 in both the special leave petitions hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
It was also informed that since the proposal of Maruti had already been rejected, the question of issuing any Annexure II in its favour did number arise.
In November, 2008, Maruti filed two separate applications to the High Power Committee against the Petitioners, requesting that the SRA should number sanction the proposal submitted by the Petitioners and that its proposal should be reconsidered.
It was further proposed that Maruti should develop its property independently.
1595 of 2009 and 1596 of 2009 filed by Adarsh and Saidham respectively.
In response to the said companymunication, the SRA informed the Corporation about the letter of the Corporation dated 16 th September, 2006 by which they had informed that Annexure II issued to Maruti stood cancelled on account of fraud.
The SRA after companysidering the proposal of the petitioners, directed acceptance of the scrutiny fee, which is duly paid by both of them.
11905 of 2019 thereby, praying for permitting it to withdraw its Additional Affidavit dated 21st July, 2018 i.e. giving companysent to the settlement.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these Special Leave Petitions.
It is further proposed that, in the event Adarsh was to develop the property separately, since it was number having a direct access, it should be provided an access by a road having a width of 9 meters.
During the pendency of hearing, the SRA as well as Maruti had filed Affidavit stating therein, that each of the seven plots are capable in law of independent schemes.
Thereafter, on 06th September, 2005, Maruti submitted a proposal for a Scheme of rehabilitation of slum dwellers.
In furtherance of the proposal submitted by it, respondent Nos.
Finally, by an Order dated 20th January, 2014 both the Writ Petitions were rejected by the High Court.
3 and 4 initiated proceedings for verifying Annexure II, i.e. list of eligible and number eligible slum dwellers.
Vide Order dated 7th February, 2009 the High Power Committee set aside the Order passed by the SRA dated 30 th December, 2006, by which the SRA had rejected the proposal of Maruti.
An affidavit dated 21st July, 2018 which came to be filed on 25th July, 2018 by Maruti stating therein, that it has taken a companyscious decision, to accept the terms of settlement submitted by the SRA so that all the three proposals can independently be developed by the respective societies.
5 herein had addressed a letter dated 29th January, 2019 to the Registry of this Court stating therein, that they had never opposed the terms of settlement proposed by the SRA and expressly recorded their companysent.
The Petitioners, therefore, moved Notices of Motion before the High Court.
On 6th October 2008, SRA informed the Corporation that the proposal of the Petitioners for issuance of Annexure II be held to be treated as acceptable.
Liberty was also granted to the petitioners to apply for relief in case of any adverse action.
Vide subsequent Orders dated 08 th November, 2011 and 22nd November, 2011, the High Court permitted the SRA to proceed with the hearing and further directed that the decision, if any, which would be taken shall number be implemented, till further Orders are passed by the High Court.
This companyrt, therefore, directed the SRA by an Order dated 16th February, 2018, to submit a draft proposal for settlement, in terms of its affidavit and submit the same for approval by other parties.
On 11th July, 2008 the Assistant Municipal Commissioner addressed a companymunication to the SRA stating therein, that after calling required documents from Maruti they would scrutinize and process a revised Annexure II on merits.
It is further proposed that Adarsh and Saidham, the petitioners herein, shall either jointly develop their properties or develop their properties independently.
The petitioner in SLP C No.
However, it appears that, thereafter, several companyplaints were received regarding frauds being companymitted in the preparation of Annexure II.
6070 of 2014 is a society hereinafter referred to as Adarsh of slum dwellers of plot bearing CTS No.
The respondent number 5 in both the special leave petitions, namely, Maruti Nagar Co operative Housing Society, is also a society of slum dwellers hereinafter referred to as Maruti situated on plots bearing CTS Nos.
On 29 th July, 2008 the SRA addressed a letter requesting the Corporation to scrutinize the draft Annexure II submitted by the Petitioners.
The Corporation, therefore, cancelled Annexure II.
Vide Order dated 5th March, 2012 the SRA rejected the proposals of the Petitioners and directed that the proposal of Maruti be processed further on the basis of revised Annexure II, to be issued by the Corporation.
The General Body of Maruti Respondent number 5 herein had passed a resolution regarding implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and appointed a developer.
On 8th March, 2006, the Corporation forwarded Annexure II to Slum Rehabilitation Authority hereinafter referred to as the SRA .
Accordingly on 7th May, 2011 the SRA fixed a hearing on 23rd May, 2011 for cancellation of the proposal of Petitioners.
The orders passed by the SRA were assailed before the Bombay High companyrt in Writ Petition Nos.
6204 of 2014 is a society hereinafter referred to as Saidham of slum dwellers of plots bearing CTS Nos.
In the meantime, both the petitioners, Adarsh as well as Saidham, had submitted Slum Rehabilitation proposals, in respect of slum dwellers on the plots mentioned hereinabove along with the companysent of the slum dwellers and a General Body resolution.
601, having a total area admeasuring 704.30 sq.
206 of 2011.
In accordance with the Order passed by this companyrt, the SRA has circulated a draft terms of settlement proposing therein, that the Corporation should issue independent Annexure II to all the three societies, i.e. Adarsh, Saidham and Maruti for their respective independent plots.
585, 604 and 605, having a total area admeasuring 6627.50 sq.
By an Order dated 20th May, 2011 the High Court granted interim relief to the Petitioners thereby, staying the hearing fixed before E.O., SRA.
Similar affidavit came to be filed by both the Petitioners, accepting the terms of settlement as proposed by the SRA.
97692/2018 came to be filed by the SRA.
Immediately after filing the I.A., 214 slum dwellers of Maruti Respondent No.
1596 of 2009 along with Notice of Motion No.
595, 596 and 602 having a total area admeasuring 2247.20 sq.
However, Maruti filed I.A. No.
Date 2019.08.09 161934 IST Reason The petitioner in SLP C No.
The Respondent Corporation has also filed an affidavit dated 28th August, 2018 that it has numberobjection for accepting the terms of settlement as proposed by the SRA.
The facts in brief leading to the present special Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD leave petitions are as under.
The SRA passed an order on 20th December, 2006 observing therein, that Annexure II was issued on account of bogus and fraudulent documents filed by Maruti.
Ordinarily the matter should have ended here.
Accordingly I.A. No.
1595 of 2009 along with Notice of Motion No.
R. GAVAI, J. Both these Special Leave Petitions are challenging the judgment and Order dated 20 th January, 2014 passed by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
