WP9681.12 v. Asstt. Municipal Commissioner & Ors.

Mr.Manoj Patil i/by Pritesh Bohade for the petitioner. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2012 P. C.: 1 This writ petition questions the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, dismissing the appeal under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 (in short, hereinafter referred to as “the Slum Act, 1971”). 2 This appeal was directed against the order passed by the competent authority dated 16th June, 2012 under Section 33/38. 2 WP9681.12 3 From a reading of both orders, it is apparent that the petitioner had raised several issues before the competent authority and equally the appellate authority which could not have been gone into by them. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the scheme itself and alleged fraud on the part of the persons connected with it, then, as rightly held by both authorities, his remedy was elsewhere.

Equally, the issue of the developer, namely M/s. Topworth Properties Pvt. Ltd. and the agreement with them being in force or not, could not have been raised before the authorities. That agreement and the arrangement with the developer could have been questioned by way of appropriate proceedings and not before the competent authority and the appellate authority challenging the notice of eviction. The petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises as they were to be demolished for redevelopment of the property. The petitioner has been held to be eligible according to the learned counsel and equally, according to the competent authority and the appellate authority. He was also offered transit accommodation or a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as compensation in lieu thereof. The petitioner does not want to avail of this benefit but questioned the Scheme and the appointment of the developer. These issues could not have been 3 WP9681.12 raised by him in the limited jurisdiction of both authorities.

The authorities, therefore, did not commit any error in rejecting the submissions based on the same. 4 Having found that the authorities were not competent to deal with them, I find no error apparent on the face of the record. 5 The petition is devoid of any merits and, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 6 At this stage, the petitioner's advocate prays for a stay of the order and particularly of demolishing of the existing premises. Having found that the petitioner's attempt is not to abide by the Annexture II, and avail of the benefit of the Scheme but to question it and the appointment of the developer implementing the Scheme, then the petitioner's motives are questionable and doubtful. The petition is really not at the instance of an aggrieved slum dweller but somebody having a vested interest in the property and its redevelopment. For such reasons, the request is refused. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 4 WP9681.12