1 PIL No.49 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.49 OF 2008 Liyakat Shaikh ... Petitioner Versus Metropolitan Commissioner, Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.2023 OF 2008 Lilawati Wd/o Chowdhary Yadav and others ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1481 OF 2009 Abdul Rafiq Shaikh ... Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others. ... Respondents Mr. S.G. Kudle for petitioner in PIL No.49 of 2008. Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for petitioner in PIL No.2023 of 2008. Ms. Bhavna Mhatre for petitioner in PIL No.1481 of 2008. Mr. G.W. Mattos, Assistant Government Pleader for State. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for MCGM. Ms. Kiran Bagalia for MMRDA. Mr. Vijay Mane for respondent No.5 in PIL No.49 of 2008. 2 PIL No.49 of 2008 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2010 P.C. The petitioners claim to be residents of Juhu Lane near Wireless Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai and make a grievance about some persons seeking rehabilitation on the basis of fabricated documents, while seeking rehabilitation on account of road widening undertaken by the Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Development Project (MUIP). 2. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) has undertaken a road widening project at N.S. Phadke Marg (Juhu Lane), Mumbai under the MUIP. The survey of Project Affected Persons was undertaken by MMRDA and notices under section 3Z(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 were also issued by it to the Project Affected Persons, interalia calling upon them to submit documentary evidence to show that they were entitled for rehabilitation. Upon receipt of the documents for deciding the egibility of the Project Affected Persons (PAPs), the same were forwarded by MMRDA to the office of the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Removal) and Competent Authority, Andheri. The 3 PIL No.49 of 2008 eligibility of the Project Affected Persons was decided by the said Deputy Collector in the year 2006. 3. As per the Government Resolution dated 15th November, 2005, 1.1.2000 was the cut off date for deciding the eligibility of Project Affected Persons under the MUIP. By Government circular dated 17th January, 2008, the Government provided that permissible documents like electricity bills, MTNL Bills submitted by persons seeking rehabilitation would have to be submitted by the concerned authorities. 4. In the present petition, the petitioners' case is that prior survey was carried out by SPARC (NGO) at the instance of the Joint Metropolitan Commissioner and the Project Director, MUIP and that as per the said survey, there were only 768 structures affected including 695 residing units and 73 commercial structures. However, the list of Project Affected Persons sent by MMRDA to the Deputy Collector subsequently indicates 932 structures and the MMRDA will now give the rehabilitation to 932 persons instead of giving it to only 768 persons. It is submitted that the other persons got the benefit of their names being sent by MMRDA to the Deputy Collector on the basis of fabricated documents. 4 PIL No.49 of 2008 5. On behalf of the MMRDA, it is pointed out in the affidavit dated 6th October, 2008 filed by Mr. Abhaykumar Ghan, the Executive Engineer, MMRDA that the survey carried out by SPARC in September, 2003 was a preliminary survey which does not include structures at the Junction (near Parimal Building), Tabelas and the structures which are given `A' numbers, i.e. 180A, 370A etc. It is submitted that only complete survey available at the time of takeover of the road by MMRDA is of Construma Consultancy prepared in or about September 2005. It is further submitted that the final allotment is completely dependent upon the certification of the eligibility by the competent authority on the perusal of documents submitted by the occupants. It is also submitted that the survey carried out by Construma Consultancy was counter- checked and verified by the officers of the MMRDA. 6. As far as Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Removal) & Competent Authority, Andheri for the purposes in question is concerned, it is stated by him in his affidavit dated 9th September, 2008 that certain persons whose names are given by the petitioners in their writ petitions were found to be ineligible. It is also stated by the said officer in para 4 of his 5 PIL No.49 of 2008 affidavit dated 9th September, 2008 as under:- "4. I say that a list of 932 PAPs was forwarded to my office by MMRDA. Out of the said 932 persons, in respect of those PAPs declared eligible by my office, a re- verification was carried out by it in respect of the list of persons furnished by the Petitioner to this Hon'ble Court as well as from the Annexure'`A' annexed (at Pages 21 to 23) to the Petition. My office would further undertake the exercise to re-verify the documents of other eligible persons within a period of 6 months, inasmuch as, the said process is arduous. I say that verification of the Electricity Bills will have to be done by Reliance Energy on the basis of the attested xerox copies submitted by my office. I say that the said Company insists upon the original Electricity Bills for verification, which cannot be provided by my office as it is not in possession thereof. Furthermore, in the present case too, mot of the persons from whom the original electricity Bills were called for, had not produced the same. It was only when the said Company was informed about the facts of the present case, did it relent and forwarded its verification report vide its reply dated 29th August, 2008. In the circumstances aforesaid, it is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate directions to Reliance Energy to furnish the Verification Report pertaining to the authenticity of the Electricity Bills that will be submitted to it by my office in the remaining cases expeditiously. By virtue of the said Report, my office would reverify the documents of the remaining PAPs." 7. In view of the above, since the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Removal) & Competent Authority is the competent authority to take final decision in the matter, we direct that the said competent authority shall look into the list of persons claiming to be 6 PIL No.49 of 2008 eligible for rehabilitation as Project Affected Persons for the road widening project in question and shall examine the claim of each applicant on the basis of authentic documents like voters' card, rationing card, electricity bills etc. for the period prior to 1.1.2000 and on the basis thereof, prepare a list of Project Affected Persons and the MMRDA shall provide an alternative accommodation only to those Project Affected Persons who are found to be eligible by the said competent authority. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. It is clarified that it is for the competent authority to decide as to which of the authenticated documents referred to hereinabove and other documents submitted to it should be relied upon and what weightage should be attached to the probative value of such documents for the purpose of determining as to whether the concerned claimant was occupying any structure in the concerned area as of 1.1.2000. 8. As regards the persons who are already found to be ineligible by the competent authority, appropriate action will be taken by the State Government against the officers who had certified those ineligible persons as eligible Project Affected Persons, within 3 months from today 7 PIL No.49 of 2008 and compliance report shall be placed on the record of this proceeding within four months. 9. It is also directed in respect the persons who are found to be ineligible as per the final decision of the competent authority that if such persons are allotted any accommodation, whether permanent or temporary, MMRDA will take back the alternative accommodation from such ineligible persons as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from today. 10. The authenticated photo-stat copies of the documents which are referred to in the affidavit filed on behalf of the MMRDA shall be retained with this Court. The rest of the record be returned to MMRDA. 11. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of in terms of the above directions. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.