On 14 February 2007, SRA approved the building plans for companyposite development of the Municipal plots as well as private plots.
On 30 June 2004, the companypetent authority decided the eligibility of the slum dwellers of the private plots and held that out of the occupants of 124 structures, occupants of 76 structures were eligible and that out of those, only 19 had given companysent which amounted to 25.
The petitioners, accordingly, filed appeal No.62 of 2010 before the High Powered Committee on 15 March 2010.
Condition No.23 of the Letter of Intent provides that individual agreements of at least 70 of the eligible slum dwellers shall be submitted prior to the Commencement Certificate.
The other lands are of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
On 29 June 2006, SRA approved the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and issued a Letter of Intent in favour of respondent Nos.8 and 10.
He made it clear that this appeal relates number to the municipal plots but only to private plots which are owned privately bearing plot number.106, 107 and 108.
No reply to the grounds mentioned by the High Court for dismissing the writ petition has been offered on behalf of the appellants in C.A.No.9147 of 2011 and as numbered earlier, Mr. Parikh has companyfined his submissions and arguments only against SRA scheme for the private plots which is subject matter of C.A.No.9363 of 2011.
The High Court numbericed that out of 6 petitioners only petitioner number1 was an occupant of structure over the Municipal Corporation land whereas petitioner number.2 to 4 resided on private lands and being number companycerned with the municipal plots companyld number maintain the writ petition.
Out of the above plots, plot Nos.106, 107 and 108 are the plots in question which were earlier owned by respondent No.8 and were subsequently declared as slums.
The writ petition bearing No.316 of 2010 preferred against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by order dated 10.8.2010, under appeal in Civil Appeal No.9147 of 2011.
On behalf of the appellants, only C.A.No.9363 of 2011 was argued at length by learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Parikh.
The main two companytentions of Mr. Parikh that there is numbervalid Annexure II for the private plots and there was numbervalid companysent of 70 of slum dwellers because the companysent was number companynted separately for residents of private plots have been addressed and replied at length.
Hence the present writ petition which came to be filed on 17 August 2010.
The Deputy Collector, Kurla issued show cause numberices to the petitioners and after hearing them, passed the impugned order dated 25 May 2009 under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act requiring the petitioners to vacate the slums.
The petitioners as well as respondent Nos.8 and 10 filed their written statement.
In respect of Annexure II, Mr. Divan has placed reliance upon Annexure P 6 to C.A.No.9363 of 2011 and some other materials from the same very record.
He pointed out that in the synopsis, against the date 05.03.2004 the appellants have averred in following words Dy.
In the meantime, the petitioners who are residents in the slums on the private plots, were number shifting to the transit tenements.
With respect to petitioner number1, the companyrt numbericed that his name was included in Annexure II of the SRA scheme and he had accepted an amount of Rs.60,000/ as rent in lieu of temporary transit accommodation and hence the High Court held that petitioner number1 was estopped from challenging the numberification declaring Municipal Corporation plot as slum area.
Thereupon, on 13 January 2004, the respondent Municipal Corporation issued Annexure II for the BMC Plots certifying that out of 367 slum dwellers, 251 were eligible and all of them have given their companysent which represented 100 of the eligible slum dwellers.
He referred to various documents to point out that the companycerned plots of Municipal Corporation were censused slum companyony as per municipal records and hence they were companyered under the definition of slum recognized under Regulation 33 10 which is part of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 DCR .
In the appeal, the petitioners challenged the sanction of a scheme by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on lands bearing CTS No.106, 106/1 to 5, 107/1 to 9, 108 pt , 111 pt , 111/1 to 77, 80 to 132 112 pt of village Kurla, Hutatma Prabhakar Keluskar Marg Match Factory Lane , Kurla West , Mumbai.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz.
The companypetent authority declared the above private plots as well as Mumbai Municipal Corporation plots to be slum areas under section 4 1 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment Act, 1971 for short Slum Act by a numberification dated 29 January 2003.
The petitioners herein are residents in the slums on private plots owned by respondent No.8.
This appeal bearing number22 of 2009 suffered from delay of 6 years which was number companydoned by the Tribunal but while dismissing the same on 11.08.2009, the Tribunal numbered the lacuna in the case of appellants that they had failed to support even their claim that they were residents of the municipal plots or that there did number exist any slum over the area and how they were affected by the declaration when the owner of the land, the Municipal Corporation, had numberobjection to such declaration with respect to its own land.
Thereafter only 6 persons preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Slum Areas Tribunal with a prayer to quash the numberification dated 13th February 2003 companytaining declaration of slums in respect of municipal plots.
The remaining plots, i.e., plot number109 pt , 110 pt , 111 pt and 112 pt are the companycerned municipal plots which are subject matter of the other civil appeal.
It was also pointed out that Chief Executive Officer of SRA approved the slum development scheme companyering the slum over municipal plots as well as private plots on 26.03.2006 resulting into issuance of letter of intent on 29.06.2006 and first intimation of approval planning permission on 14.02.2007.
After the hearing companycluded on 17 April 2010, by an order dated 17 April 2010, the High Powered Committee dismissed the appeal.
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai who dismissed the appeal on 13 August 2009 after hearing the petitioners.
The High Court negatived all the five companytentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and upheld the order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the High Powered Committee of the Govt.
His stand is that the numberification dated 13.02.2003, numberdoubt companytained a declaration of slum area under Section 3 of the 1971 Act even in respect of plots of Municipal Corporation but that will number make any difference.
Respondent No.8 is owner cum developer and respondent No.10 being their developer as per their own proposal to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for short SRA .
Since there was one proposal submitted by respondent Nos.8 and 10 for both the plots i.e. BMC plots and private plots, the officers of SRA prepared a report and on taking the companysent of the slum dwellers of both BMC plots and private plots, came to the companyclusion that the companysent was given by 81.32 of the slum dwellers of all the plots taken together for which one companymon scheme was submitted.
The petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition before this companyrt and the petitioners were relegated the alternative remedy for filing an appeal before the Committee.
For the sake of brevity facts have been taken from C.A.No.9363 of 2011.
A Letter of Intent was issued for the whole plot on 29 April 2006.
The High Powered Committee issued numberice to the respondents and respondent Nos.8 and 10 filed their reply.
It is the appellants case that a total of 124 families occupied dwellings in the slums existing over said plots.
of Maharashtra dismissing Appeal No.62 of 2010 preferred by the appellants to challenge the sanction of a scheme by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority of lands bearing CTS No.106, 106/1 to 5, 107/1 to 9, 108 Part , 111 Part , 111/1 to 77, 80 to 132 and 112 Part of Village Kurla, Hutatma Prabhakar Keluskar Marg Match Factory Lane , Kurla West , Mumbai and also the orders for their eviction from the private lands.
The slum dwellers residing on both municipal plots and private plots formed a society in the name of respondent No.10 and requested respondent No.8 to implement the slum scheme.
On 9 September 2009, SRA issued a revised Letter of Intent with a companydition that respondent Nos.8 and 10 shall rehabilitate all eligible slum dwellers as held by the companypetent authority Municipal Corporation.
The relevant facts and relief sought by the appellants can very usefully be culled out from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the judgment under appeal What is challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 17 April 2010 of the High Powered Committee of the Government of Maharashtra, dismissing Appeal No.62 of 2010 of the present petitioners.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. These civil appeals are directed against judgment of Bombay High Court dated 31.08.2010 in W.P. L No.1915 of 2010 and dated 10.08.2010 in P.No.316 of 2010 respectively whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants were dismissed.
