Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Om-Sai Darshan Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) and its secretary, challenging eviction notices dated 4th March 2005 issued by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The petitioners, a proposed cooperative society of 28 slum dwellers occupying hutments on land bearing CTS No.539/C-1 at Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai, claimed entitlement to a separate Annexure II for redevelopment of their portion of the land under the slum rehabilitation scheme. The background involved a competing society, Hanuman Nagar Coop. Housing Society (Respondent No.4), which had obtained a letter of intent and Annexure II for a larger redevelopment project covering the same land and surrounding areas. The petitioners contended that their structures were on a distinct portion of the land, that a ministerial direction had been issued on 18th October 2003 to grant them Annexure II, and that the eviction notices were illegal because the Slum Rehabilitation Authority had rejected their application by order dated 30th December 2004. They also argued that without a declaration under section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, the letter of intent could not be issued. The respondents maintained that the earlier cancellation of Respondent No.4’s Annexure II had been rightly withdrawn, that the petitioners could be accommodated in the larger project with transit and permanent accommodation, and that section 3C(1) was not a prerequisite for slum rehabilitation schemes under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. During the hearing, the court examined the provisions of Chapter IA of the Slum Act and the DC Regulations. The judgment text was incomplete, and the final decision of the court on the validity of the eviction notices and the entitlement to separate Annexure II was not provided.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned eviction notices under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 were valid, and whether the Petitioners were entitled to separate Annexure II for slum rehabilitation.
Law Points
- validity of eviction notices under sections 33 and 38 of Slum Act
- requirement of declaration under section 3C(1) before slum rehabilitation scheme
- interpretation of Regulation 33(10) of DC Regulations
- separate Annexure II for distinct slum pockets
- powers of State Government under section 3K of Slum Act
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 59
Writ Petition No. 910 of 2005 with Notice of Motion No. 698 of 2005
H.L. Gokhale, Abhay S. Oka
Shri R.V. Govilkar with Shri M.B. Jadhav and Ms.L.N. Bedekar for the Petitioners; Shri R.M. Sawant, A.G.P. for Respondents Nos.1, 3 & 6; Shri G.D. Utangale for Respondent No.2; Shri Sanjay Jain i/by Shri Piyush Shah for Respondent No.4; Shri Jakhadi for Respondent No.5; Shri A.A. Joshi with Shri T.S. Parwardhan for Respondent No.7
Om-Sai Darshan Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) and Chandrakant Ramchandra Thakur
The State of Maharashtra, The Slum Rehabilitation Authority, The Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board, The Secretary, Hanuman Nagar Coop.Housing Society (Prop.), Volga Constructions Pvt.Ltd., The Dy.Collector, SRA, M/s.MCA Construction
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of eviction issued under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, and seeking a writ of mandamus for grant of Annexure II for development.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seeking quashing of eviction notices dated 4th March 2005 and direction to SRA to hear their application for Annexure II.
Filing Reason
The members of petitioner society were issued eviction notices alleging refusal to shift to alternative accommodation offered by developer; they claimed entitlement to separate Annexure II for redevelopment of their portion.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, directions by Minister to grant NOC and Annexure II to petitioner were not implemented; NOC and Annexure II granted to respondent no.4 were cancelled but later restored; SRA rejected petitioner's request by order dated 30th December 2004.
Issues
Whether the eviction notices issued under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act were valid.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to grant of separate Annexure II for redevelopment of their portion of land under the slum rehabilitation scheme.
Whether a declaration under section 3C(1) of the Slum Act was a prerequisite for issuing a letter of intent for slum rehabilitation scheme under Regulation 33(10) of DC Regulations.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that eviction notices were illegal as they were not given separate Annexure II despite Minister's direction; that separate society existed on distinct portion; and that without section 3C(1) declaration, letter of intent could not be issued.
Respondents argued that NOC and Annexure II were validly restored; that petitioners were offered transit accommodation and could be accommodated in redeveloped project; and that section 3C(1) was not a prerequisite for slum rehabilitation scheme under DC Regulation 33(10).
Judgment Excerpts
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interalia seeks to challenge the orders of eviction dated 4th March 2005 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board) against the members of the Petitioner No.1-proposed society under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
the Respondent No.2 issued a letter of intent on 12th May 2003 in favour of Respondent No.4-society
the NOC and the Annexure II was granted to the Respondent No.4 on 30th November 1996 and on account of long in-action on the part of the Respondent No.4, the said NOC and Annexure II was cancelled on 22nd January 2004.
Shri Govilkar invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the Slum Act, Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, 1991
Procedural History
The petitioner society was promoted by members occupying hutments on CTS No.539/C-1 since 1st January 1995. A proposal for registration was submitted to SRA. On 12th May 2003, a letter of intent was issued to Respondent No.4 for a larger redevelopment project on the same land. On 18th October 2003, the Minister for State directed issuance of Annexure II to the petitioner society. On 22nd January 2004, NOC and Annexure II granted to Respondent No.4 were cancelled, but later restored by communication dated 5th March 2004. On 30th December 2004, SRA rejected the petitioners' request for separate Annexure II, advising them to join Respondent No.4. On 4th March 2005, eviction notices under sections 33 and 38 were issued to petitioner members. The writ petition was filed with a Notice of Motion for interim protection; a status quo order was granted on 12th December 2005. Hearing concluded on 1st February 2006, and judgment was pronounced on 26th April 2006, but the available text is incomplete.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: Section 33, Section 38, Section 3K, Section 3C(1), Section 3A, Chapter IA
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991: Regulation 33(10)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
