*1* wp.7923.09.915.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7923 OF 2009 Mangilal Chunilal Parmar. ..Petitioner -Versus- The Deputy Collector (Encroachment & Removal) and Competent Authority and another. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Jitendra G. Damani, for the Petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Pramodkumar and Mr.P.N.Vora i/b Pramodkumar & Company, for the Respondent No.2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging an order dated 24.04.2008 which has been passed by the President of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R.) Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.16/2007. 2 The Petitioner is the original Appellant and he had challenged the notification declaring certain immovable property as slum area. That declaration has been published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 31.03.1985. The property involved is CTS Nos.420 and 420/1 to 22 admeasuring 4488 square metres of village Kanheri, Taluka : Borivali. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that no notice has been given prior to the property being notified as slum area. The Petitioner has acquired the *2* wp.7923.09.915.sxw right, title and interest in this property through his wife by a registered deed of conveyance, copy of which is annexed to this petition. It is his case that this conveyance is dated 19.07.1966 which has been duly registered. Once the property has been transferred to the Petitioner’s wife and the name of Petitioner has been notified in the relevant records, then, the notice not being given to the Petitioner vitiates the entire exercise and action, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the Petitioner derives no right, title and interest in the immovable property and therefore, was not entitled to any notice. 3 Mr.Damani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has taken me through the order of the Tribunal and particularly the reasoning in paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof. He assails the same by pointing out that the Petitioner is the husband of Chanchalaben Parmar. She had acquired the property way back in the year 1966 through one Mekulal Gupta. The deed is registered. Once there is a registered deed of conveyance conveying the immovable property and transferring it absolutely, then, the registered deed of conveyance cannot be brushed aside. The Tribunal was in error in brushing aside and ignoring the same because in its limited jurisdiction, it was not permissible to scrutinize the transaction covered by the deed of conveyance. For all these reasons, the order of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 4 On the other hand, Mr.Pramodkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on perusal of the deed of conveyance. That deed of conveyance is between the original owner and the wife of the Petitioner. That conveyance in the schedule refers to a property which cannot be said to be the same and identical to the property in question and on which the slum has been located. Further, the property belonged *3* wp.7923.09.915.sxw originally to the Trust namely F.E.Dinshaw Trust. What has been purportedly transferred by the conveyance is right not in the land, but in the structures. Even that right is doubtful because the documents such as electricity bill produced before the Tribunal and annexed to this Writ Petition are suspicious and there appears to be some shop premises whereas the entire chawls and structures are residential. Lastly, Mr.Pramodkumar invites my attention to the copy of the plaint which is annexed to the affidavit in reply of the Respondent No.2 and submits that the civil suit is pending seeking declaration of the title in favour of the Petitioner in which both, the said Trust, namely, F.E.Dinshaw Trust, (original owner), and the Respondent No.2, are parties. Initially, the Respondent No.2 was not impleaded as party, but later on the Respondent No.2 has been impleaded. However, without any interim order, the suit is pending and in the meanwhile, the buildings have been constructed in which the slum dwellers have been housed. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction and the Writ Petition be dismissed. 5 With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I have perused the petition and annexures thereto, so also, the impugned order. In paragraph-7 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has referred to the conveyance deed. What has been observed by the Tribunal is that the conveyance deed refers to the immovable property which is consisting of two chawls bearing Municipal Nos.R-5452(3) and 5452(4). The Tribunal has, therefore, observed that the Petitioner could not give any explanation as to why the present land bearing CTS Nos.420 and 420/1 to 22 has not been mentioned with all its dimensions and boundaries in the schedule to the conveyance deed. Further, the conveyance is between the erstwhile owner Mekulal Gupta and *4* wp.7923.09.915.sxw Chanchlaben Parmar. If the Petitioner is stated to be the husband of the said Chanchlaben Parmar, then, to my mind the explanation should have been forthcoming from the Petitioner who was the Appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not made any inquiry or investigation into the title of the parties, but has recorded the finding of fact on perusal of the documents so as to deal with the contentions of the Petitioner that he was entitled to notice before the property was declared as slum. Finding that the documents produced do not prove exclusive title of the Petitioner, that the Tribunal has rightly discarded the same and disbelieved the Petitioner. Now, upon perusal of the entire material produced before me, it is apparent that the Petitioner has filed a civil suit in this Court, copy of plaint which is produced for my perusal and annexed to the affidavit in reply of the Respondent No.2, would show that the Petitioner is the original Plaintiff therein and he has impleaded the said F.E.Dinshaw Trust, Maqsoodali Shaukat Ali Khan and Suresh R. Solanki, so also, the SRA Co- operative Housing Society together with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. In the plaint itself it has been narrated that the F.E.Dinshaw Trust was owner of the suit property which admeasures 588 square metres and bears the CTS Nos.420 and 420/1 to 22 with regard to which the slum notification has been issued. In the plaint, it is described that Mekulal Gupta was the lessee of the land and he constructed two chawls which are assessed to Municipal Nos.R-5452(13) and 5452(1). Therefore, the conveyance purports to convey the lease of land and ownership of structures standing thereon, to Chanchalaben Parmar who claims to be deceased wife of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. 6 In the petition, on the other hand, what has been stated is that the Petitioner is the owner of the property. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why there is discrepancy in the pleadings in the petition *5* wp.7923.09.915.sxw and the suit. 7 For the aforementioned reasons and finding that the Tribunal has not committed any error apparent on the face of record or perversity in dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal on the ground of the Petitioner’s locus, that this Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)