Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed two appeals against the judgment and order dated 5th April 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, declining to grant ad-interim relief in the notices of motion taken out by the appellant in Suit (L) No. 814 and 813 of 2011. The property in question is a single property consisting of a censused slum on land owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. 753 families (678 residential, 142 commercial, 25 R/C and 8 others) are in occupation of the slums. Out of these occupants, about 500 occupants are held to be eligible for allotment of premises in the slum rehabilitation scheme by the Competent Authority. The occupiers of huts in the slum are divided into two groups. One group has formed an association which is respondent no.1 in the first appeal (Om Dattaji Rahiwasi Seva Sangh) and the other group has formed an association which is respondent no.1 in the second appeal (Dhobhighat Compound Rahiwasi Seva Sangh). The appellant claims to have been appointed as the developer for the slum rehabilitation scheme by the respondent no.1 associations, but the respondents dispute this and claim that the appellant has no right to develop the property. The appellant sought ad-interim relief restraining the respondents from interfering with its possession and development of the property. The learned Single Judge declined to grant ad-interim relief, holding that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the appellant. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Mohit S. Shah and Justice D.G. Karnik, dismissed the appeals, upholding the Single Judge's order. The court held that the appellant does not have an absolute right to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme; the slum dwellers' association has the right to choose the developer, and the competent authority's approval is subject to the association's consent. The court also found that the appellant's possession was disputed and that the respondents had a prima facie case of interference, but the balance of convenience did not warrant granting ad-interim relief. The court directed that the appeals be disposed of expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ad-Interim Relief - Balance of Convenience - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The court declined to grant ad-interim relief to the appellant developer, holding that the balance of convenience was not in its favor as the slum dwellers' association had the right to choose the developer and the appellant's claim was disputed. (Paras 1-10) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Developer's Right - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - The court held that a developer does not have an absolute right to implement a slum rehabilitation scheme; the slum dwellers' association has the right to choose the developer, and the competent authority's approval is subject to the association's consent. (Paras 2-8) C) Property Law - Possession - Interference - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 - The court found that the appellant's possession was disputed and that the respondents had a prima facie case of interference, but the balance of convenience did not warrant granting ad-interim relief. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant developer is entitled to ad-interim relief restraining the respondents from interfering with its possession and development of the slum property, pending the suit.
Final Decision
The appeals are dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge declining ad-interim relief is upheld. The suits are directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
- Developer's Right
- Slum Dwellers' Choice
- Ad-Interim Relief
- Balance of Convenience
