Writ petition challenging an order of the Administrator under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. Petitioners requested intervention under Article 227. The court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
903-wp-2217-11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2217 OF 2011
Arjun Amarshi Waghari and 3 Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. ...Respondents.
...Respondents.
Mr. Makrand Kale i/by M.P.Vashi & Associates, advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms Geeta Shastri, AGP for the respondent nos.1 to3.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
DATED : March 20, 2013.
P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2 Petitioners, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, are challenging the order dated 22.7.11 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. S-24/11 and S-26/11 under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas ( I.C. & R) Act, 1971. So far as petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they were not parties to the aforesaid appeals and, therefore, they have no locus to challenge the impugned order. The aforesaid
Shivgan
2 903-wp-2217-11
appeals were filed against the notice dated 4.1.2011 issued for implementation of the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector (Enc./Rem) and the Competent Authority, Andheri.
3 It is pertinent to note that petitioner nos.3 and 4 never challenged the order dated 22.12.10 passed by the Deputy Collector (Enc./Rem) and the same has achieved finality. What the petitioner nos.3 and 4 have challenged, is the notice issued for implementation of the said order. The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, sanctioned by the SRA, has already been completed by the developer and permanent rehab accommodation have been allotted to petitioner nos.3 and 4 in July, 2010. Occupation Certificate has also been granted to rehab building and the slum dwellers other than petitioner nos.3 and 4 have already shifted to the said building. The learned counsel for the petitioner nos.3 and 4 contends that they are entitled for premises admeasuring 269 sq.ft. according to the new policy and not for 225 sq.ft. , as allotted by the SRA. Developer obtained LOI on 20.2.2007, i.e., prior to 14.5.2008 on which date, new policy came into force. In the circumstances, it is not open for petitioner nos.3 and 4 to claim advantage of the new policy.
4 The learned counsel for Petitioner nos.3 and 4 relied upon the
Shivgan
3 903-wp-2217-11
order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai which is annexed at Ex. C (Page 53) to the petition. By the said order, it is directed that no slum dwellers shall be evicted. Fact remains that the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, sanctioned by the SRA, has already been completed by the developer by constructing rehab buildings in which petitioner nos.3 and 4 have been allotted permanent rehab accommodation.
5 Taking totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is accordingly dismissed .
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Shivgan
Arjun Amarshi Waghari and 3 Ors.
State of Maharashtra
2 Ors.
Ranjit More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
