ssp 1 WP 2193 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2193 OF 2010 Nitin Madhubhai Thakkar .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.H.S.Anand i/by Ms.Sarita Donde, for the petitioner in WP No.2193 of 2010 and for the respondent No.1 in WP No.538 of 2011. Mr.Mahendra Ghelani with Mr.Hiren Mehta, Mr.Asif Khatri, Mr.Parikashit Desai, for the petitioner in WP No.538 of 2011 and for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in WP No.2193 of 2011. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, for the respondent – SRA in WP No.2193 of 2011. Mr.G.D.Utangale, for the SRA in WP No.538 of 2011. Mr.P.G.Lad, AGP, for the respondent State in WP No.2193 of 2010. Ms.Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP, for the State in WP No.538 of 2011. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 30 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. By the above petition, the petitioner who claims to be the resident of the area in question wherein slum rehabilitation scheme has been implemented by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 interalia prays for setting aside, cancellation and for a declaration, as illegal the slum rehabilitation scheme on the property bearing CTS No.501-F/1, 501-F/2, 501-E/1 Part of Village Ghatkopar Kirol, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai, admeasuring area of 5475.20 sq.mtrs. and for the further relief that the respondent No.1 herein be directed to hand over the recreation ground as ssp 2 WP 2193 of 2010 per the layout on plot bearing CTS No.501-F/2 admeasuring area of 1889.90 sq.mtrs. to the federation of the New Maneklal Estate as per the condition of the LOI issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority i.e. respondent No.1 herein. 2. In the context of the reliefs sought in the petition, it would be relevant to note a few facts. By a Notification dated 24-01-1983, an area of 4411 sq.mtrs. was made part of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Thereafter, by a Notification which was in the nature of Corrigendum, dated 06-02-1997, the said area was increased to 9022.6 sq.mtrs. The respondent No.3 herein, has a Letter of Intent in his favour which has been granted by the SRA for implementation of the said Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, pursuant to which he has undertaken the implementation of the said scheme. 3. We are informed across the Bar that the said Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in so far as the rehabilitation of the Slum dwellers is concerned, has already been completed and the occupation certificate in respect of the building in question has been given partly in the year 2005 and partly in the year 2008. Slum dwellers numbering 265 have accordingly been rehabilitated in the four wings of a cluster building which has been constructed for their rehabilitation under the said scheme. 4. As can be seen, what is sought by the petitioner by way of ssp 3 WP 2193 of 2010 substantive prayer clause (b) is concerned, is setting aside the scheme to the extent of 5475.20 sq.mtrs., which prayer in our view, at this point of time, cannot be countenanced, in the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the scheme has been substantially implemented. 5. In so far as the prayer relating to the recreation ground is concerned, though it is true that in terms of the original layout, an area admeasuring 1090. 50 sq.mtrs., was earmarked for recreation ground. It appears that pursuant to the oral directions issued by our Predecessor Bench, the respondent No.3 herein has filed an affidavit dated 23-02-2011, in which at para No.3, it has been stated thus : 3. With reference to paragraph No.1(a) of the Affidavit in Rejoinder, I say that the alleged Association referred by the petitioner i.e. New Maneklal Residential Welfare Association is an association of individual persons and not a Federation of Societies. I further say that the Memorandum of Association attached to the said Affidavit in Rejoinder, clearly indicates that the said alleged association does not have any aims or objects of having a Recreation Garden as alleged by the petitioner. I say that as regards the undertaking is concerned, I say that the said undertaking was given to the Slum Rehabilitation Authorities and I am still abiding by the same. I say that as per the L.O.I. And sanction granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, I am ready and willing to hand over the Recreation Ground to the Federation as mentioned in the L.O.I., In view of the same, all allegations and contentions in the paragraph under reply are denied in toto. (Emphasis supplied) ssp 4 WP 2193 of 2010 5. We therefore, accept the said statement of the respondent No.3 as an undertaking to this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the segregation of the said area of 1095.50 sq.mtrs., of recreation ground into three parts to be provided at three different places in the layout and beyond the slum area is not permissible. According to the learned counsel, recreation ground which is meant for the slum area has to be provided within the area meant for the slum dwellers. It is required to be noted that in respect of the area of 9022.6 sq.mtrs., which is an area on which the said Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is being implemented, a composite layout was submitted by the respondent No.3. The said composite layout interaila contains plot meant for rehabilitation, as also plot wherein the buildings comprising of the flats for free sale are situated. In terms of Regulation 11(4) of the Development Control Regulation 1991, the amenities which are to be provided in a layout can be shifted, provided it is within the same layout. The present case is not a case where the amenity is totally done away with. However, in terms of the undertaking, as recorded herein above, the respondent No.3 has undertaken to provide for the said amenity to the extent of 1095.50 sq.mtrs., may be at three different places and also outside the slum area. However, what is to be borne in mind is that the recreation ground is still situated within the same layout, though may be ssp 5 WP 2193 of 2010 outside the area meant for the slum dwellers. In the context of the undertaking which has been given by the respondent No.3 as contained in Para No.3 of the said affidavit dated 23-02-2011, in our view, there is no need to issue any directions as prayed for by the petitioner by way of prayer clause (c), as we have already accepted the said statement as an undertaking to this Court. In view of the said undertaking, no further directions need be issued. The above petition accordingly to stand disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )