Chetan Devaji Solanki (Mohanlal Devajo Solanki) vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

The contempt alleged is of an order dated 12 July, 2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on Writ Petition (L) No. 8288 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 9845 of 2022.

¶16

The primary grievance of the petitioners is of breach of three fold directions as contained in the said order passed by this Court. Firstly, that the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (for short “PAAA” ) has not been entered by the developer-respondent no. 4 with the petitioners on exactly

¶17

the same terms and on parity with the others entitled to re-accommodation in the

¶18

Page 1 of 7 15 September 2025

¶19

20.CONPW70_2024.DOC

¶20

redeveloped building. The second grievance is that the petitioners have not been paid the transit rent as directed by this Court in paragraph 8 of the said order. Thirdly, the allotment of the tenement has not been finalized as directed in paragraph 5 of the said order . The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by this Court are required to be noted, which reads thus:

¶21

“3. We note the submissions by Dr Sathe for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”), and this is important to allay a preliminary anxiety expressed by the Petitioners through Mr. Anturkar, namely that they are not being treated as ‘trespassers’ or ‘unauthorised occupants’.

¶22

The exact allotment is not known but will be as per a lottery to be conducted by the SRA.

¶23

The consequence is twofold. First, that all Petitioners will be entitled to a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (“PAAA”) with the Developer on exactly the same terms and on parity with all others entitled to re-accommodation in the redeveloped building.

¶24

Second, all Petitioners will be entitled to receive regular transit rent per square foot at the same rate and on the same terms as other persons entitled to re-accommodation, from the respective dates of vacating the site.”

¶25

From the perusal of paragraph 3 of the order passed by this Court (supra),

¶26

it appears that there was a dispute in regard to the petitioners eligibility, i.e., whether the petitioners would form part of the slum scheme in question inasmuch as the petitioners were not the slum dwellers but were in occupation of the land, being the allottees of MHADA, who were allotted open pitches. It is in such context, in paragraph 3 of the order in question, the Court had made the said observations recognizing that the petitioners would not be treated as trespassers or unauthorized occupants. What is relevant is that the MHADA had placed on record of the Writ Petition an affidavit dated 29 July, 2022 of Shri Rahul Subhash Vhatkar, Executive Engineer, MHADA wherein insofar as the eligibility of the

¶27

Page 2 of 7 15 September 2025

¶28

20.CONPW70_2024.DOC

¶29

petitioners is concerned, who were allotted pitches, the same were included in the

¶30

slum rehabilitation scheme, the following statements were made:

¶31

“4. Accordingly a total of 513 plots adjacent to the S.G. Barve Marg and other places on the said CTS No 11 were planned as shop /Pitches plots. The plots were divided into Groups A to K and 5374 groupe comprising of 27 shops was proposed adjacent to the S.G. Barve Marg. The present Petitioners are part of the said 27 shopkeepers belonging to Group E who were given open pitches adjacent to the S.G. Barve Marg. This Authority issued allotment letters in respect of the shop plots (one such allotment letter is annexed at Page 89A to the Petition) wherein it is clearly stated that the allotment is of open plot of land. The allotment letter also specifies that the construction work of the shop shall be carried out by the allottee at his own cost. The allottees of the open pitches are the lessees of this Authority.

¶32

1 say that the encroachers on the open land behind the Group E shops in CTS No 11 (part) are not the allottees of this Authority. These unauthorised slumdwellers formed Sunrays Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) and submitted a proposal for rehabilitation to this Authority through the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The proposal included the 27 shops belonging to Group E situated adjacent to the S.G. Barve Marg. After receipt of the rehabilitation proposal this Authority communicated it's No Objection to the Chief Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to implement the slum rehabilitation project on the subject plot admeasuring 1277 square meters vide its letter dated 10/09/2014. Subsequently the Competent Authority after carryingout survey of the site and scrutiny of the documents produced before the concerned officer issued the Annexure II vide letter dated 22/08/2017. Out of the 27 shopkeepers 14 shop keepers had communicated their consent for implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme which include the Petitioner No 13 and Petitioner No 14.(annexed as Exhibit "A" to the Affidavit in reply of Respondent No 5).

¶33

I say that this Authority had allotted open pitches to the Petitioners and the structures are not constructed by this Authority. The provisions of DCR 33(5) is applicable to the Development/Redevelopment of Housing Schemes of MHADA. The provisions of DCR 33(5) would be applicable if the layout is prepared by this Authority and upon preparation of the layout tenements are constructed and allotted to various allottees. in thepresent case this Authority has neither constructed the structures in occupation of the Petitioners nor are any tenements allotted to the Petitioners. The Petitioners are allotted pitches of open plots to erect strictures thereon. A similar issue was considered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rafique Abdul Sattar Sayyed & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No 741 of 2010. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20/07/2011 and this Hon'ble Court in paragraph 5 of the said order held that DCR 33(5) applies to layouts prepared by MHADA. In the facts of that case also MHADA had allotted open pitches to the allottees and MHADA had neither constructed structures nor allotted tenements. Heretoannexed and marked Exhibit "A" is copy of the order dated 20/07/2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 741 of 2010.”

¶34

Page 3 of 7 15 September 2025

¶35

20.CONPW70_2024.DOC

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent no. 4-developer, however, has intended to take a stand and which, in our opinion, is quite objectionable contending that the petitioners are not held eligible as seen from the determination of their eligibility in Annexure-II. In supporting such contention, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for respondent no. 4-developer to the communication dated 22 August, 2017 of the Competent Authority addressed to Deputy Collector (Eastern Suburbs) annexing to such letter Annexure-II, which according to him, would determine the petitioners to be not eligible. However, relying on the said communication of the Competent Authority, the stand of the developer cannot be accepted inasmuch as the MHADA was on record before this Court in the affidavit of Shri Rahul Vhatkar, which we have noted hereinabove, to accept the petitioners to be eligible and more particularly the petitioners who were not the tenants of the MHADA but were allottees of the pitches and hence MHADA had no objection including the petitioners to be entitled to the benefits under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Thus, the structures of the petitioners necessarily would be required to form part of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. This was considered by this Court in its order dated 12 July, 2023, of which contempt is alleged. The developer cannot take a stand contrary to the clear order passed by this Court and not enter into a PAAA with the petitioners. We are not satisfied with such conduct of the developer.

¶37

In the aforesaid circumstances, as there was some ambiguity in this regard, by virtue of the document dated 22 August, 2017 issued by the Competent Authority of the MHADA, we are not inclined to proceed in contempt against the

¶38

Page 4 of 7 15 September 2025

¶39

20.CONPW70_2024.DOC

¶40

developer or the officers of the SRA. In these circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the following order would meet the ends of justice in disposing of the present Contempt Petition, so that the orders passed by this Court would stand complied:

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

(i) Let a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement be entered with the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today as directed in paragraph 7 of the order dated 12 July, 2023 passed by this Court on Writ Petition (L) No. 8288 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 9845 of 2022

¶43

(ii) We permit the developer to deposit the transit rent within a period of four weeks in respect of each of these petitioners with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the said amount. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall make payment of arrears of the transit rent to the petitioners within one week of the deposit.

¶44

(iii) Insofar as the directions of this Court in regard to the allotment of the tenements by a lottery is concerned, necessary steps shall be taken by the SRA as per the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the order dated 12 July 2023. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

¶45

(iv) The SRA is directed to inform the petitioners within two

¶46

Page 5 of 7 15 September 2025

¶47

20.CONPW70_2024.DOC

¶48

weeks from today the further course of action which would be taken in regard to the lottery and/or allotment of the slum tenements to the petitioners.

¶49

(v) Needless to observe that the transit rent amount shall be decided in accordance with the law and such amount shall be paid to the petitioners.

¶50

Before parting, we need to also deal with one of the contentions of the developers that the petitioners at some point of time had shown resistance that they would not become members of the Slum Rehabilitation Society, as the petitioners were not the original slum dwellers but were in possession of their structures as pitchholders being MHADA allottees. We cannot countenance such stand taken by the petitioners inasmuch as in respect of a slum rehabilitation building, there cannot be two Slum Rehabilitation Societies. In this view of the matter, the petitioners need to be necessarily the members of the Cooperative Society formed by the slum dwellers.

¶51

In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this Contempt Petition, however, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the proceedings in the event there is any further default in compliance of the original order as also the present order. No costs.

¶52

At this stage, learned counsel for the developer as also the learned

¶53

Page 6 of 7 15 September 2025

¶54

20.CONPW70_2024.DOC

¶55

counsel for the petitioners submit that the area as identified by MHADA in column 6 of the communication dated 12 December, 2023 page 87A Exhibit H of the paper book shall be the final area, which would be allotted to the petitioners. The stand taken by the developer is accepted.

¶56

In view of disposal of Contempt Petition, Interim Application will

¶57

not surive and it accordingly stands disposed of.

¶58

( AARTI SATHE , J.)

¶59

(G. S. KULKARNI , J.)

¶60

Page 7 of 7 15 September 2025

¶61

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2025 11:44:43

Chetan Devaji Solanki (Mohanlal Devajo Solanki) v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Devaji Solanki (Mohanlal Devajo Solanki) v. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rollmans Aluminium Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra

Praful R Mehta vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Uti Retired and Vss Employees Social Association vs Uti Asset Management Company Limited and 6 Ors.

Pramod Vithhal Waghole and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Ganpat Shankar Kute and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Urban Development Dep. and Ors.

Sitabai Ramchandra Kolambkar vs the State of Maharashtra Th. Principal Secretary Housing Department