Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shri Atesham Ahmed Khan and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the approval of a slum rehabilitation scheme granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to the respondents, M/s Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. The dispute pertained to a plot of land at Mankhurd, Mumbai, covered under DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations. The petitioners claimed to be chief promoters of a proposed cooperative housing society representing slum dwellers, while the first respondent was a developer appointed by the second respondent, another proposed cooperative housing society. The facts revealed that on 15 June 2006, the first and second respondents submitted an application for sanctioning a slum rehabilitation scheme, annexing a slum plan showing 1400 existing tenements and an architect's certificate referring to 1403 structures. They claimed consent of 911 slum dwellers initially, later producing consents of 1000 out of 1350 slum dwellers on 26 September 2006. The petitioners submitted their proposal on 13 October 2006. The SRA granted approval to the respondents' scheme. The petitioners challenged this approval on grounds of violation of natural justice, lack of consent, and incorrect assessment of the number of structures. The court examined the submissions and found that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing on 15 February 2011, and their objections were considered. The court also noted that the respondents had produced consents exceeding the required 70% of slum dwellers. The court held that the challenge involved disputed questions of fact and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the approval of the slum rehabilitation scheme.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - DCR 33(10) of Development Control Regulations - The petitioners, claiming to be chief promoters of a proposed cooperative housing society, challenged the approval of a slum rehabilitation scheme on the ground that they were not heard. The court held that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing on 15 February 2011 and that the authority had considered their objections. No violation of natural justice was established. (Paras 5-6) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Locus Standi - Consent of Slum Dwellers - DCR 33(10) - The petitioners contended that the respondents did not have the requisite consent of 70% of slum dwellers. The court noted that the respondents had produced consents of 1000 out of 1350 slum dwellers, which exceeded the required percentage. The petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of lack of consent. (Paras 3-4) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Judicial Review - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - The court observed that the challenge to the approval was based on disputed questions of fact regarding the number of structures and consents. The court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction as the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was justified in granting approval to the slum rehabilitation scheme without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the approval.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no violation of natural justice and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal. The approval of the slum rehabilitation scheme was upheld.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- slum rehabilitation scheme
- DCR 33(10)
- consent of slum dwellers
- locus standi
