Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a proposed co-operative housing society of hutment dwellers residing on a plot of land measuring about 15,600 sq. mtrs. in Malad, Mumbai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the sanction of a composite slum rehabilitation scheme by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in favor of respondent nos. 4 and 5, and the rejection of their own application. The petitioners claimed that they had formed a society and obtained consent of more than 70% of the 326 eligible slum dwellers. They submitted an application for approval under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for the City of Mumbai, 1991 on 8 November 2004, claiming their proposal was complete with Annexures I, II and III. The larger plot, including the petitioners' area, had been declared a slum under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 and was acquired under Section 14(1) on 19 July 1999. The fourth respondent, a society registered in 1994, had been attempting to develop the area since 1989. It appointed the fifth respondent as developer and applied for Annexure-II approval in 2003. On 9 December 2004, the fifth respondent filed an incomplete application for scheme sanction without Annexures I, II and III. The SRA referred the draft Annexure II to the Additional Collector for simultaneous verification of the lists submitted by both parties. On 2 August 2005, the petitioners' application was rejected, and subsequently, on 25 November 2005, the scheme was sanctioned in favor of the fifth respondent. The petitioners argued that under SRA guidelines, applications must be considered on a first-come-first-serve basis; only if the first applicant fails to obtain the requisite 70% consent can a later application be examined. They contended that the SRA erred in entertaining the respondents' incomplete application and in processing it simultaneously without first deciding the earlier application. The respondents countered that the procedure had evolved and that they had initiated the Annexure-II approval process earlier. They also pointed to the SRA's direction for simultaneous verification. The court examined the procedure under the D.C. Regulations and SRA guidelines, focusing on the requirement of filing complete applications with all annexures and the order of consideration. The court heard arguments on the legal effect of the first-come-first-serve principle in slum rehabilitation schemes and the interplay of the guidelines. The final order and ratio are not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Approval Procedure - Regulation 33(10) of Development Control Regulations for the City of Mumbai, 1991 - The Court examined the procedure for filing applications for slum development schemes, which requires submission of Annexures I, II, and III simultaneously with the application to SRA. The petitioners filed their application on 08.11.2004 with complete documents, while respondents filed an incomplete application on 09.12.2004, and a complete application only on 03.08.2005. The Court noted the guidelines require simultaneous processing of all annexures. (Paras 2-5, 8) B) Slum Rehabilitation - First Come First Serve Principle - D.C. Regulation 33(10) - The petitioners contended that applications for slum scheme sanction must be considered on a 'first come first serve' basis, and a second application can only be examined if the first fails to obtain 70% consent of eligible slum dwellers. The Court considered this argument in the context of competing applications. (Paras 5-6) C) Slum Rehabilitation - Consent of 70% Slum Dwellers - D.C. Regulation 33(10), Appendix IV - A proposed society must have support of 70% of eligible hutment dwellers. The Court examined the claim that both societies could not simultaneously have 70% consent, thus necessitating sequential consideration. (Paras 6-7) D) Slum Rehabilitation - Validity of Annexure-II Approval - Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, Section 4, 14 - The Annexure-II list of eligible slum dwellers requires approval by the competent authority. The Court noted the fourth respondent applied for Annexure-II approval in 2003, and the SRA directed simultaneous verification of annexures submitted by both parties. The procedure for direct application to competent authority was also discussed. (Paras 4-5, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Slum Rehabilitation Authority erred in sanctioning a composite slum rehabilitation scheme in favor of respondents 4 and 5 without first considering the prior application of the petitioners, and whether the rejection of the petitioners' application was valid
Law Points
- Slum rehabilitation scheme
- first come first serve
- Annexure-II approval
- consent of 70% slum dwellers
- Regulation 33(10) of DCR
- Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
- 1971
