1 wp7662.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7662 OF 2010 Digambar Bhikaji Chavan & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.G. Deshmukh i/by Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Reddy for Respondent No.2 and 3 (SRA) Mr.S.G. Surana for Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and 14. Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w Aftab Diamondwala and Mahanish Choudhari i/by Divya Shah Associates for Respondent No.12. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2011. ORAL ORDER (PER A.A. SAYED, J.) 1. The challenge in the above petition is to the order dated 17th July, 2010, passed by the High Power Committee, dismissing the Application of the petitioners. By the said Application, the petitioners had prayed for rejection of proposal of the seven societies (proposed) of a consolidated Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of redevelopment which is to be carried out by respondent No.12-developer in the subject plots. 2. Respondent No.12-developer has been issued LOI on 19th January, 2010 by CEO, Slum Redevelopment Authority (SRA) in respect of the redevelopment under the aforesaid Slum Rehabilitation Scheme after the said societies have passed General Body Resolutions in support of the said 2 wp7662.10.sxw Respondent No. 12-developer implementing the scheme. Regulations 33(10) r/w Appendix IV of the Development Control Regulations, 1991, contemplates a proposal of Slum Rehabilitation Project preferably through a proposed or registered co-operative housing society of hutment dwellers as members of the said society. Clause 1.6 of Appendix IV provides for individual agreements to be entered by the owner/developer/co-operative housing society/NGO with the eligible hutment dwellers. Clause 1.15 of Appendix IV postulates 70% or more eligible hutment dwellers to agree to join a Rehabilitation Scheme, to be considered for approval. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the consent of most of the hutment dwellers is taken by making false representation and that the criteria of 70% or more consent of the hutment dwellers is not satisfied. Learned Counsel further submitted that the plots of some of the societies are located under the network of Tata High Power Tension Wires and there would be restrictions in the development. He further submitted that on some of the plots of the societies there is 100% reservation for Recreation Ground (RG), and redevelopment is not permissible on the said plots and that this issue is also the subject matter of another writ petition pending in this Court. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. By the impugned order dated 17th July, 2010, the High Power Committee, after hearing Counsel for the parties, has passed the following order: "Heard the Advocate for the Applicant and Respondents. It is the case of the 11 applicants that they have never given consent for 3 wp7662.10.sxw implementation of SRS. However, it is seen from list submitted by the Advocate for the Society that the Applicant at Sr. No.1 and 3 are the only eligible slum dwellers and they have not consented for the S.R.S. Further, the applicant No.7, 8 and 10 are ineligible slum dwellers and the names of applicants at Sr. No.2,4,5,6,9 & 11 are not included in the Annexure-II and therefore question of their consent does not arise. The applicants have not denied this fact. Therefore, there is no merit in the allegation made by the applicants. Further the Competent Authority has submitted a report by way of certified Ann-II that 87.52% eligible slum have given consent for the Scheme. Individual consent will be verified before the issuance of C.C. And grievances of applicants regarding 70% consent, will be looked into by the SRA at the time of issuance of C.C. There is no merit in the contention of the applicants. Hence, the application is dismissed." 5. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the said order of High Power Committee is unexceptionable. Though the petitioners have raised a grievance that the consent of most of the hutment dwellers have been taken fraudulently, none of the seven societies who had mooted the proposal have come forward objecting to the redevelopment. The said societies were party respondents to the Application and are also party respondents in the present petition. Municipal Corporation/Competent Authority, have certified the Annexure II-list of the eligible hutment dwellers, being occupants prior to the cut-off date of 1st January, 1995. It is an admitted position that as of today, out of 11 petitioners, only 3 petitioners are held to be eligible hutment dwellers as per Annexure-II. As per the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.12-developer, out of 1907 slum dwellers, 886 have vacated their huts and their structures have already been demolished and they have been shifted to transit camps or paid compensation in lieu of transit camp accommodation. It is also averred in the reply of Respondent No.12-developer that they enjoy support of 87.93% eligible slum dwellers. The scheme of slum rehabilitation under DCR 33(10) r/w Appendix IV contemplates that once 70% or more 4 wp7662.10.sxw eligible hutment dwellers consent to the Slum Rehabilitation Project, the other hutment dwellers would be bound by the same. The Respondent No. 12-developer has paid premium of more than Rs. 9 crores on 12-01-2010 being 25% land premium for the redevelopment. Moreover, Respondent No. 12-developer has been granted permission for implementing the redevelopment project by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, and has also been issued environmental clearance by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Considering the above, in our view, the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Project cannot now be stalled at the instance of the present 11 petitioners, 8 out of whose names do not figure in the Annexure II, and on this ground alone the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.12-developer submitted that insofar as the grievance of the petitioners in respect of Tata High Power Tension Wires is concerned, it relates only to FSI benefit and the quantum of area which is to be given to each eligible hutment dwellers would in any event not be affected in any manner. As regards the grievance about the Recreation Ground is concerned, the learned Counsel for respondent No.12- developer has drawn our attention to para 7 of the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.12-developer which reads as under: "I say that as the Recreation Ground was required to be relocated by amalgamating two Schemes which were situated on a contagious stretch and covering all the aforesaid societies, this Respondent approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Notice of Motion No. 234 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002. This Hon'ble Court took into consideration the plans submitted for effecting the present Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and has thereafter, passed the Order dated 25th November, 2009 5 wp7662.10.sxw approving the relocation of the aforesaid Recreation Ground for the purpose of implementing the aforesaid Slum Rehabilitations Scheme. Here annexed and marked Exhibit-D is a copy of the Order dated 25th November, 2009 along with the annexures hereto. 7. It is noticed that the LOI dated 19-01-2010 has been issued by SRA, (who is the Special Planning Authority in respect of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme) subject to 72 conditions as enumerated therein. Condition Nos. 24, 65 and 68 of the LOI read as follows : "24. That you shall submit the Agreements of at least 70% of eligible slum dwellers with the photographs of wife and husband on each of the agreements before requesting for Commencement Certificate and the name of the wife of the eligible occupier of hut shall be incorporated with joint holder of the tenement to be allotted in the rehabilitation building. 65. That you shall execute lease deed with Tata Power Co. Ltd., for area of land belonging to them (approximately 5839.31 sq. mtrs.) before asking insitu FSI benefit in respect of said portion of land. 68. That you shall abide to the terms & conditions mentioned in consent terms filed in Hon'ble High Court Order in the Notice of Motion No. 233 of 2009 in W.P. No.1152 of 2002 with respect of development/handing over of D.P. Reservation R.G. in the S.R. Scheme under reference." Undoubtedly, the respondent No.12-developer would have to follow the mandate of SRA in all respect including that of conditions for approval of the layout/building plans and issuance of the Commencement Certificate. 8. We find that even impugned order of the High Power Committee takes care of the principal grievance of the petitioners and provides that 6 wp7662.10.sxw individual consents will be verified before the issuance of Commencement Certificate and grievance of the Applicants (petitioners herein) regarding 70% consent will be looked into by the SRA at the time of issuance of Commencement Certificate. 9. In light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR , J.)