Case Note & Summary
The case involved two writ petitions filed by certain members of registered co-operative housing societies, namely Hanuman Hitwardhak SRA CHS Ltd., Ekta CHS Ltd., Pradnya SRA CHS Ltd., and Asthavinayak SRA CHS Ltd., challenging permissions granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for slum rehabilitation on land belonging to the Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority (MHADA). The permissions were granted under Development Control Regulations No. 33(10) (DCR 33(10)) and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, for plots bearing CTS No. 13 (Part), 30 (Part), and 33 (Part) at Santacruz (East), Mumbai. The petitioners had earlier appealed under section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 to the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, but all appeals were dismissed by an order dated 6 May 2010. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioners approached the High Court. In the High Court, the respondent developer (Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) filed reply affidavits, and the petitioners filed rejoinders. The respondents' senior counsel argued that the petitioners, being individual members of the societies, lacked locus standi to file the petitions, highlighting that out of approximately 750 members, only 181 members had joined the petitions and some had accepted certain benefits. The court heard the counsel for the parties at length for final disposal. However, the available text of the oral judgment is incomplete and cuts off before the court could render its decision, leaving the final outcome unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the individual members of cooperative housing societies have locus standi to challenge slum rehabilitation permissions; and whether the permissions granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under DCR 33(10) and MRTP Act are valid.
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 105
Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1530 of 2010 along with Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1213 of 2010
Mohit S. Shah, C.J., S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.V. Gangal, Mr. Anup N. Deshmukh, Ms. Anjali Awasthi, Mr. Raman Jaibhave for petitioners in WP 1530/10; Ms. Anjali Awasthi i/b Parvinder Singh Sethi for petitioners in WP 1213/10; Mr. Milind More, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2 (WP 1530/10) and 1 & 6 (WP 1213/10); Mr. V.D. Patil for respondent no. 3 (WP 1530/10); Mr. J. Reis for respondent no. 4 (WP 1530/10); Mr. P.K. Dhakhephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Divekar & Co. for respondent no. 5; Mr. Uttangale i/b Uttangale & Co. for respondent no. 3 (WP 1213/10)
Shri Sayed Anwar Gaffar & 11 others (WP 1530/2010); Mr. Ramchandra Narayan Dukhande & 180 others (WP 1213/2010)
Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division & 6 others (WP 1530/2010); Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division & 9 others (WP 1213/2010)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to slum rehabilitation permissions granted by Slum Rehabilitation Authority under DCR 33(10) and MRTP Act on MHADA land
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the permissions and implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme
Filing Reason
Dismissal of appeals under Section 35 of the Slum Act by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner on 6 May 2010
Previous Decisions
Appeals under Section 35 dismissed by Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 6 May 2010
Issues
Whether individual members of cooperative housing societies have locus standi to challenge slum rehabilitation permissions
Whether the permissions granted under DCR 33(10) and MRTP Act are valid
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents argued petitioners have no locus standi as only 181 out of 750 members filed petitions and some had accepted benefits
Petitioners argued that permissions were illegally granted
Judgment Excerpts
Both these petitions challenge the permissions granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under the Development Control Regulations Nos. 33(10) i.e. (IOA) and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on the plots of the land bearing CTS No.13 (Part), 30 (Part) and 33(Part), situated at Santacruz (East), Mumbai Suburban District belonging to the Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority (for short, MHADA).
The petitioners had challenged the above permissions in the appeals under section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, `Slum Act'). All the appeals came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 6th May, 2010, passed by the Administrator and the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai.
The petitioners are individual members who have no locus standi to file the present petitions. Out of total 750 members of these societies, only 181 members have chosen to file the present writ petitions and out of them 18 members have already accepted the
Procedural History
The petitioners filed appeals under section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 before the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, which were dismissed on 6 May 2010. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: Section 35
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXVII Rule 4
