Chandka 1 WP-1001-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2010 Prakash Ramchandra Waingavadekar & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Gayatri Singh for Petitioners. Mr. J. G. Aradwad for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. G. Surana for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 01 March 2011. P.C. : Not on Board. 2. The papers of these proceedings have been produced before the Court on the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners since it was stated before the Court that the demolition of the hutments is taking place without verification of the list of eligible slum dwellers by the Municipal Corporation which is a Competent Authority to certify Annexure II. Notice has been given to the Respondents. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the First Respondent as well as the Developer, the Sixth Respondent have appeared through counsel. Chandka 2 WP-1001-10 3. With the consent of the counsel, the Petition is taken on board for hearing and final disposal in view of the narrow controversy involved. 4. The Petitioners are the occupants of structures in the Harinagar Shivaji Nagar Slum situate on a plot of land bearing CTS Nos. 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 and 371. The Petitioners seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing (i) the SRA to issue stop work orders to the Developer in respect of the work of construction; (ii) the SRA not to issue any further permissions to the Developer without ensuring compliance of the conditions of a Letter of Intent including the provision of tenements admeasuring 269 sq. ft.; and (iii) the SRA to ensure that the Developer makes necessary provisions so that bonafide occupants continue in occupation of their transit accommodation including payment of rent until they are provided permanent alternate accommodation. An injunction has also been sought restraining the Respondents from demolishing the existing hutments without the finalisation of Annexure II. The Petitioners also seek orders setting aside the Intimation of Approval and Commencement Certificate dated 6 August 2009. There is also a challenge to an order passed by the High Power Committee on 27 November 2009. Chandka 3 WP-1001-10 5. In the present case the lands in question belong to the Municipal Corporation. The lands have been declared as a slum. Initially on 13 April 1994 a Letter of Intent was issued under the erstwhile Slum Development Scheme (SRD). An IOD and Commencement Certificate was issued and one rehabilitation building is stated to have been constructed. After the promulgation and enforcement of DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations a Revised Letter of Intent was issued on 30 March 1999. The earlier Letter of Intent has been revised again on 2 April 2009. 6. The essential question relates to the verification of those slum dwellers who would be eligible to participate in the Scheme which is to be implemented under DCR 33(10). The cut off date for the Scheme is 1 January 1995. The earlier SRD Scheme proceeded on the basis of the datum line of 1 January 1985. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has in its communication dated 29 June 2010 addressed to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation requested the latter to complete the process of verification of the eligible slum dwellers with reference to the cut off of 1 January 1995 since the earlier cut off of 1 January 1985 is now rendered obsolete. The grievance of the Petitioners is that no verification is being carried out. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the order of the High Power Committee dated 4 September 2010 by which the Municipal Chandka 4 WP-1001-10 Corporation was directed to reverify the eligibility of the slum dwellers in accordance with the voters’ list on 1 January 1995 since the Scheme is now converted into one under DCR 33(10). This order of the High Power Committee was passed on 4 September 2010 and though it directed the Municipal Corporation to complete the process of verification within eight weeks, the process is still not complete. We find merit in the contention of the Petitioners that it is necessary that the Municipal Corporation completes the process of verifying Annexure II and that till then it would not be appropriate or proper to initiate the process of demolition. 7. The second grievance of the Petitioners was that the Scheme would have to be modified to provide for alternate accommodation admeasuring 269 sq. ft. This aspect of the matter need not detain the Court any further since in the affidavit filed by the SRA in these proceedings it has been clarified that the State Government has on 9 July 2010 permitted the construction of rehabilitation tenements in accordance with the new policy which envisages each tenement admeasuring 269 sq. ft. That aspect of the grievance of the Petitioners is therefore sufficiently met in terms of the statement which has been made by the SRA on affidavit, which is accepted by the Developer before this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Developer states that he has accordingly been issued a Letter Chandka 5 WP-1001-10 of Intent on 11 August 2010 providing for rehabilitation tenements admeasuring 269 sq. ft. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and since it is evident that the process of verifying the list of eligible slum dwellers with reference to the cut off date of 1 January 1995 is yet to be carried out, we direct that the Municipal Corporation shall complete this process within a period of two months from today. For a period of two months from today, the Developer shall not carry out any further demolitions in order to enable the concerned slum dwellers to produce necessary material before the Competent Authority to establish their eligibility. We however clarify that after the Municipal Corporation completes the survey, it would be open to the Developer to provide either transit accommodation to the slum dwellers or compensation in lieu of transit accommodation. The Verification shall also include those hutments which were demolished prior to the order passed today. The Petition is accordingly disposed of since no other point is raised, at the hearing. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)