Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals challenging the Bombay High Court's order dated 04.01.2023, which had upheld a notice dated 06.12.2022 issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) directing the appellants to vacate their premises. The background of the dispute involves a slum rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by SRA in 2010 for a plot in Mumbai, which was amalgamated with two adjoining plots. The developer appointed by SRA completed Phase-I of the project but faced obstruction from the appellants during Phase-II. The SRA issued an initial eviction notice on 28.01.2019 under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). The appellants challenged this notice before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), which dismissed their application on 12.06.2019, holding that the plot was not a MHADA layout, the appellants were not tenants of MHADA but transit camp tenants paying transit fees, and they were ineligible slum dwellers. The AGRC order was never challenged. Subsequently, the SRA issued a second notice on 06.12.2022 directing vacation within 48 hours, which the appellants challenged by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the appellants had suppressed the earlier notice and the AGRC order, and that the AGRC order had attained finality. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, observing that the appellants had used dilatory tactics, had not approached the court with clean hands, and had no valid grounds to resist eviction. The Court held that the SRA had jurisdiction, the AGRC order was binding, and the eviction notice was valid. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Jurisdiction of SRA - MHADA Layout - Where MHADA consistently disclaims ownership of a plot, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has jurisdiction to undertake redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR, and the contention that only MHADA can redevelop under Regulation 33(5) is without substance (Paras 10-11). B) Slum Rehabilitation - Finality of AGRC Order - Res Judicata - An order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) under section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, if unchallenged, attains finality and cannot be collaterally attacked in subsequent proceedings (Paras 12-14). C) Slum Rehabilitation - Eviction of Ineligible Occupants - Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Transit camp tenants who are not tenants of MHADA and are ineligible slum dwellers are liable to be evicted under sections 33 and 38 for obstructing redevelopment, and the SRA's notice directing vacation within 48 hours was valid (Paras 9-11). D) Civil Procedure - Suppression of Facts - Clean Hands Doctrine - The High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition as the appellants suppressed the earlier notice of 2019 and the AGRC order, and did not approach the court with clean hands (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, who were transit camp tenants and ineligible slum dwellers, could challenge the eviction notice issued by SRA under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, after the AGRC order had attained finality.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Bombay High Court's order dated 04.01.2023 and the eviction notice dated 06.12.2022. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority has jurisdiction over MHADA layout if MHADA disclaims ownership
- AGRC order attains finality if unchallenged
- eviction under sections 33 and 38 of Slum Act valid after due process
- ineligible slum dwellers cannot obstruct redevelopment
