Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shri Ramawatar Babulal Jajodia, filed an appeal against an order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, dismissing his Notice of Motion. The appellant had filed a suit challenging a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) dated 7 January 2013 and an order dated 18 January 2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the suit premises. The appellant was the owner of the suit premises, Survey No.139A with structure at village Parle, taluka Andheri, where he conducted a marble business. He had been in possession since before 1.1.1995 as a tenant, later under a lease deed dated 21.03.1997, and became owner by registered conveyance dated 6 May 2004. The notice under Section 351 called upon him to explain alleged unauthorised construction on the ground and first floor. He replied on 11.01.2013 with supporting documents showing ownership and possession prior to 1995. The Assistant Commissioner dealt with the 12 documents filed by the appellant with one or two liner remarks and rejected them, deciding against him. The suit premises fell within a declared slum area by Government Gazette dated 24 February 1977, making the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 applicable. The court held that the Corporation cannot act under Section 351 of MMC Act without following the Slum Act, which provides for alternative accommodation. The Assistant Commissioner's order was arbitrary as he did not properly consider the documents. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the Corporation was directed to follow the procedure under the Slum Act before taking any action.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Slum Area Demolition - Conflict of Statutes - Section 351 of MMC Act, 1888 and Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 - The suit premises being in a declared slum area, the provisions of the Slum Act apply for demolition and eviction. The Corporation cannot act under Section 351 of MMC Act without complying with the Slum Act, which provides for alternative accommodation. The Assistant Commissioner's order dismissing the reply without proper consideration of documents was also arbitrary. (Paras 6-8) B) Administrative Law - Quasi-Judicial Authority - Duty to Consider Documents - Section 351 of MMC Act, 1888 - The Assistant Commissioner dealt with 12 documents filed by the appellant with one or two liner remarks and did not accept them, which amounts to non-application of mind. A quasi-judicial authority must give proper reasons for rejecting evidence. (Para 5) C) Property Law - Ownership and Possession - Protection in Slum Areas - Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 - The appellant was owner of the suit premises since 2004 and in possession prior to 1995. The structure being in a slum area, the appellant is entitled to protection under the Slum Act, including alternative accommodation if demolition is required. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Corporation can demolish a structure in a declared slum area under Section 351 of the MMC Act without following the procedure under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 14.10.2013 is set aside. The Municipal Corporation is directed to follow the procedure under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 before taking any action against the suit premises. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Slum Act overrides MMC Act for demolition in slum areas
- Section 351 notice invalid without Slum Act compliance
- alternative accommodation requirement
- quasi-judicial authority must consider documents properly
