Vgm v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.

Ms. Anjali Awasthi with Mr. Moin Khan for the Appellants Mr. U.D. Utangale with Mr. B.V. Phadnis i/by M/s. Utangale & Co. for Respondent No. 1 Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondent No. 4 Mr. M.S. Surana for Respondent o. 5 CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATE: AUGUST 28, 2012 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Vgm. 86912

The main object of the appellants is that the S.R.A. cannot act as a Planning Authority on the suit property, as the suit property was not declared as a “Slum Rehabilitation Area” under Section 3-C of the Slum Act.

Except appellant No. 4, other appellants had filed Writ Petition No. 1988 of 2011. Prayer [D] of the Writ Petition runs as follows:- “That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside LOI dated 20.03.2010 and subsequent development permissions granted by Vgm. 86912 SRA on the “Suit Property” by declaring the same as illegal, null, void and bad-in-law;” The Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by speaking order passed on 11th April, 2012.

The said appellants, thereafter, approached the Supreme Court by way of filing the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21106 of 2012, and the Apex Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, passed the following order:- “We find no reason to entertain the said SLP. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he intends to move High Court. That they may do so if advised. The SLP is disposed of in the above terms.”

A perusal of the S.L.P. shows that the petitioners had taken following grounds:- “VI. Whether High Court did not consider that u/s 2(19) of the MR&TP Act r/w. Notification dated 13.09.1996, the SRA is appointed as 'Planning Authority' in respect of “Slum Rehabilitation Area” declared u/s 3[C] of the Slum Act and hence, the SRA cannot act as Planning Authority on the 'Suit Property', which is declared “Slum Area” and not declared as “Slum Rehabilitation Area” u/s. 3C of the Slum Act? IX. Because, the High Court neglected to see that u/s. 2(19) of the MR&TP Act, the SRA has acquired the status of 'Planning Authority' in respect of “Slum Rehabilitation Area” declared u/s. 3(C) of the Slum Act, 1971, therefore, on the “Suit Property” which Vgm. 86912 is not “Slum Rehabilitation Area”, the SRA cannot implement Govt. Order dated 16.04.2008 and grant any permissions as 'Planning Authority' under the MR&TP Act? ”

Thus, it is clear from the High Court and Supreme Court orders that the appellants challenged the LOI dated 20th March, 2010 granted in pursuance of declaration of slum. The appellants, in pursuance of the liberty given by the Supreme Court, did not file review petition in High Court, and filed the present suit.

The respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of the suit, and, therefore, the Court has already framed issue regarding maintainability under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code.

The present Notice of Motion was taken out for interim protection for demolition of slum in pursuance of the order under Section 33. As stated above, the challenge to the orders under Section 33 is made on the ground that S.R.A. is not “Planning Authority” and, therefore, direction cannot be given to the Competent Authority to evict the petitioners, and that the suit property is not “Slum Rehabilitation Area” under Section 3(C) of the Slum Act. This very contention was Vgm. 86912 raised before the High Court and the Supreme Court, which came to be negatived.

The appellants are held to be eligible for permanent alternative accommodation, as their names are included in Annexure II. Mr. S.G. Surana, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, in this regard, makes a statement that the appellants will be provided permanent alternative accommodation, along with the other slum dwellers. So far as the interim arrangement is concerned, the appellants are offered a sum of `6,500/- per month, in lieu of the transit accommodation.

The appellants could have challenged the order under Section 35 of the Slum Act by filing Writ Petition. However, that remedy is not availed of.

The counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kunjhayammed v. State of Kerala, 2000-LAWS (SC-7-9), in order to contend that suit is maintainable. The trial Court in this regard has framed preliminary issue, and the same will be decided Vgm. 86912 after hearing both the parties. The said decision, therefore, cannot come to the rescue of the appellants.

Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, I find no reason to entertain the Appeal from Order. It is dismissed.

The Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(RANJIT MORE, J.)