Dismissed

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Vikas Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 2 Ors. v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2006WP/558/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition challenging an SR.A. Scheme allegedly representing a proxy battle between builders, the Court found respondent No.2 represents over 70% of eligible dwellers. Dismissing the petition as a proxy battle, it directed the Authority to provide a list of approved names for objections.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Slum Rehabilitation Authority directed to provide list of names held eligible within seven days for petitioners to raise objections.

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Vikas Co-Op. Hsg… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 558 OF 2006

¶4

 Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar
 Vikas Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd. & Ors. ..Petitioners.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 ---
 Mr.Shailesh Shah i/by Carlton Gracious for the
 Petitioners.

¶8

 Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. G.D.
 Utangale i/by Utangale and Co. for Respondent No.1.

¶9

 Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha i/by C.N. Gole for Respondent
 Nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

 Mr. Y. Choudhari for Respondent No.4.

¶11

 Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondent No.5.
 Mrs. S. Ajit Kumar for Respondent No.6.
 Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.7.

¶12

 -----

¶13

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND
ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ.

¶14

DATED : 08TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C.:

¶15

 1. This is another petition where the object
 apparently appears not to be for the benefit of
 rehabilitation of the slum-dwellers but a proxy battle
 between two builders. The petitioners claim to
 represent 43% of the slum dwellers. The respondent Nos.
 2 and 3, who have floated a Society, claim on the basis
 of Annexure to the affidavit in reply being Exh.‘A’ that

¶16

 -: 2 :-

¶17

 the Respondent No.2 has membership of 597 hutment
 dwellers out of 792, eligible slum dwellers. This
 constitutes 75.37% of the total eligible hutment
 dwellers, which is more than 70%; that is required for
 approving a S.R.A. Scheme.

¶18

 2. On behalf of the respondent No.1 it is pointed

¶19

 out that in fact it was respondent No.5 who was the
 first to approach respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 has
 come on the scene subsequently. We need not go into
 that issue, considering the object of S.R.A. Scheme,
 which is to benefit the slum dwellers to get habitable
 premises. In the event, those who are eligible, are
 denied the benefit of SRA Scheme, they have a right of
 putting forward their case to the competent authority
 and if aggrieved, before the appellate authority. In
 the affidavit of G.K. Bansode, in paragraph 2 (c) it is
 set out that many of the eligible slum dwellers who had
 earlier given their consent to the proposed society
 floated by the petitioners have since withdrawn their
 consent. Such an issue had earlier came up before us in

¶20

 a similar other petition being writ petition No.
 2375/2005 and other petitions, which was disposed of on
 16th December, 2005. Considering the object of the
 S.R.A. Scheme and as the respondent No.2 has the
 confidence of more than 70% of the eligible slum

¶21

 -: 3 :-

¶22

 dwellers and as respondent No.5 has been appointed by
 them, we do not find this a fit case to exercise our
 extra ordinary jurisdiction.

¶23

 3. There is, however, one more grievance made by
 the petitioners and that is that the names of ineligible
 slum dwellers have been approved and such persons ought
 not to have been considered. Normally such exercise is
 carried out before the Annexure II is issued for the
 eligible slum dwellers. However, considering the
 grievance made by the petitioners, we direct the
 respondent No.1 to give a list of the names of those who
 have held to be eligible finally to the petitioners
 within seven days from today. It will be open to the
 petitioners, if so advised, based on the material in
 their possession, to file objections, if there are any
 persons, who are ineligible and on such objections to be
 filed, it will be for the competent officer to consider
 the said objections and if those objections are upheld
 and consequently, the number comes to less than 70% of
 those eligible, then to take such an appropriate steps
 in law in which they will be entitled.

¶24

 4. With the above direction, the petition stands
 disposed of.

¶25

 -: 4 :-

¶26

 08.03.2006 (F.I.Rebello,J)

¶27

 (Anoop V.Mohta, J)

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Vikas Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 2 Ors. v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Vikas Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 2 Ors. v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

kiran a acharekar Vs the mumbai muncipal corporation for gr bombay and 2ors

Gopal R. Jaiswal and Ors. Vs Mogaveera Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Amir S/O. Anant Das Vs the Municipal Corn. of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

kirit kishore kadam Vs state of maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Ranjit Singh Bora Vs Union of India , Chief of the Naval Staff and Anr.

Kiran M Yerlekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.