Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Harshaben Madhu, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 07/02/2019 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban, in Appeal No.673 of 2018. The Grievance Redressal Committee had upheld the earlier orders of the Appellate Authority (Additional Collector) dated 18/02/2016 in Appeal No.385 of 2015 and the Competent Authority (Deputy Collector) dated 26/08/2015, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over permanent rehab tenement No.407 in Building No.2 of the Kethan SRA Cooperative Housing Society Limited, implemented on a plot in Malad, Mumbai. The petitioner claimed to be a slum dweller entitled to the tenement, but the authorities found that she was not a slum dweller on the cut-off date and thus not eligible. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents, including the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the developer, contended that the petitioner had no right to the tenement and that the concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to retain the tenement. The court noted that the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority, and Grievance Redressal Committee had all concurrently found that the petitioner was not eligible. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Eligibility for Permanent Rehab Tenement - Cut-off Date - The petitioner was not a slum dweller on the cut-off date and thus not entitled to allotment of permanent rehab tenement under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - The Competent Authority, Appellate Authority, and Grievance Redressal Committee correctly ordered eviction - Held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to retain the tenement (Paras 1-6). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference under Article 226 - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by three authorities that the petitioner was not eligible for the tenement - No perversity or jurisdictional error found - Held that writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was not a slum dweller on the cut-off date, is entitled to retain the permanent rehab tenement allotted under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, and whether the orders of eviction passed by the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority, and Grievance Redressal Committee are sustainable.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The impugned orders of eviction are upheld.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- eligibility for permanent rehab tenement
- eviction of ineligible slum dweller
- jurisdiction of Grievance Redressal Committee
- scope of writ petition under Article 226
