1 1009.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1009 OF 2011 Ramnath Sumaru Pasi. ... Appellant. V/s. Hutment Rehabilitation Authority and others. ... Respondents. V.T.Lulla for the appellant. P.D.Ojha for respondent No.1. B.V.Phadnis i/b. Girish Utangale for respondent No.2. A.R.Pande with M.A.Rathod i/b. S.P.Shukla for respondent No.3. Ms.K.K.Soran for respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 16th November 2011. P.C. : The appellant- original plaintiff is taking exception to the order dated 20th April 2011 passed in Notice of Motion No.1864/2010 in S.C.Suit No.1499/2010 decided by the Judge, City Civil Court, 2. The plaintiff instituted suit claiming following substantial reliefs: 2 1009.11-ao “a. For declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the land bearing City Survey No.1110 (part) adm 315 sq.m. situated at Village Kandivali shown in plan Exh.`C’ to the plaint. b. For setting aside the permission granted by the Defendant No.6 to the Defendant No.3 under L.O.I. Dated 2.11.2005 with letter dt. 31.8.2009 and terms and conditions dt. 2.2.2010 (Exh.`Q’ to the plaint) with two Annexure II issued by the Defendant No.5 and 6 in respect of the suit land, as being illegal, invalid and ultra vires to the powers and functions of the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7.” 3. The plaintiff has taken out notice of motion seeking order of injunction restraining the defendants from developing suit land under Slum Scheme pursuant to L.O.I. dated 2nd November 2005 with letter dated 31st August 2009 and letter dated 2nd February 2010 containing terms and conditions issued by defendant No.6 and/or any permission in respect of the land bearing City Survey No.1110 (part) admeasuring 315 sq.meters of village Kandivli situated at M.G.Road, Kandivli (W), Mumbai. 4. According to the plaintiff, he has purchased the suit land vide unregistered agreement dated 15th August 1961 from one Shri Sidhwa. In the agreement, the area of the land sold to the plaintiff is shown as 300 sq.yards, however, the plaintiff was put in possession of the land admeasuring 315 sq.mtrs. After purchase of the property, the plaintiff constructed structure of 14 rooms on the suit land. Out of these 14 rooms, 8 rooms are in possession of the plaintiff, his family members and relatives whereas rest of the rooms are let out to the tenants. The plaintiff claims to be in use, occupation and possession of 3 1009.11-ao the suit land. The Additional Tahasildar- NA, Borivali passed an order dated 28th April 1980 after giving notice to defendant No.5- Corporation for levy of N.A. Charges in respect of the suit land. The Additional Tahasildar- NA, Borivali vide his aforesaid order dated 28th April 1980 levied N.A. Taxes from 1st August 1972 in respect of the suit land. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the property and is paying N.A. charges to the State Government. There was no interference to his possession over the suit land from the year 1961, as such he has perfected his title in relation to the property. According to the plaintiff, his advocate has wrongly issued a declaration and given his consent for redevelopment of the structures erected on the suit land. The advocate for the plaintiff, in the year 2008, has wrongly mentioned that the plaintiff decided to join S.R.A. Project and gave consent to the society. In fact, the plaintiff has not given such consent and has not joined the S.R.A. Project. According to the plaintiff, declaration of the suit land as slum is illegal, ultra vires to the powers and functions of the defendants and it was without notice to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, entire action of the defendants of including his name in the Slum Scheme is without his consent and illegal. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land and prays for setting aside the permission granted by defendant No.6 to defendant No.3 under letter of intent dated 2nd November 2005 along with two other letters as being illegal, invalid and ultra vires. 5. The suit claim has been opposed by defendant No.3 by filing written statement. According to defendant No.3, the plaintiff is claiming his entitlement in relation to the suit land, valuation of which 4 1009.11-ao is beyond the pecuniary limits of the trial Court. The plaintiff is required to pay court fee in accordance with section 6(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1959. The plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has challenged the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and in view of provision of section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act” for short), the civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is also urged that the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act to defendant No.4- society. It is claimed that a survey was carried out in 1976 by Defendant No.5- Corporation; wherein it was found that the plaintiff is in possession of a structure admeasuring 10 ft. x 7 ft. and the said structure was given census number bearing No.16-7/8. The plaintiff was also issued photo-pass in respect of this structure. Later on, the plaintiff extended his structure unauthorizedly which was found to be admeasuring 11.3 ft. x 15.6 ft. During the survey carried out in the year 2000, the structure in possession of the plaintiff was re-numbered as Hutment No.95/61. The plaintiff was again issued photo-pass in respect of his structure. It is claimed that in the year 1996, the occupiers of the structures including plaintiff formed society and appointed one developer, namely, M/s.Panorama Builders and Developers to redevelop the said plot under S.R.D. Scheme. The plaintiff, on scrutiny of his documents, has been held eligible for an alternate accommodation. It is also contended that the plaintiff has joined the Scheme as he was held eligible for alternate premises. However, he wanted three more accommodations for his three sons and one commercial premises of 250 sq.ft. and since 5 1009.11-ao the defendants refused to fulfill his demands, he has filed the suit just to press his unjust demands. It is contended by defendant No.3 that out of three rehab buildings, one building is already constructed and the work of second rehab building is going on. It is submitted that if the injunction as sought by the plaintiff is granted, great irreparable loss would be caused to the defendants. Taking into consideration all relevant aspects as well as considering the contention of the defendants, the trial Court refused to grant injunction. 6. On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court and after hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, I feel that the reasoned order passed by the trial Court needs no interference. 7. The plaintiff in substance is challenging the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and in view of bar under section 42 of the Slum Act, the Court is not competent to grant substantive relief as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to place on record so called unregistered agreement dated 15th August 1961. Neither the said agreement is produced before the Court nor the vendor has been examined to support the contention of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff that he has purchased the suit land from one Mr.Sidhwa, thus, cannot be accepted. On perusal of record, it is found that the plaintiff is eligible to receive one premises as his name appears in Annexure-II. On perusal of the record, it is further disclosed that the plaintiff was found in possession of the structure admeasuring 10 ft. x 7 ft. bearing census No.16-7/8 and he was issued photo-pass in respect of the said structure. He has also executed Kabuliayatnama Exh.2 and given 6 1009.11-ao undertaking that he would vacate the suit premises admeasuring 10 ft. x 7 ft. as and when required by the Government. In a survey conducted in the year 2000, the plaintiff was found in possession of the structure admeasuring 11.3 ft. x 15.6 ft. which was numbered as Hutment No. 95/61. The plaintiff was again issued photo-pass in respect of the structure. The plaintiff has also made a statement before the authority that he is occupying the structure admeasuring 11.3 ft. x 15.6 ft. and agreed to pay compensation to defendant No.5 and also also agreed to to vacate the same whenever required by the Government. 8. Thus, the documents which were suppressed by the plaintiff are brought on record and have been considered by the trial Court. It is also found from the P.R. Card that the plaintiff is only Imalamalak and under the SRA Scheme, the suit premises is being developed by defendant No.3 and the plaintiff being the occupier of one hut is eligible for one premises only and is not entitled to stake his claim in respect of plot of land. The trial Court has considered all these aspects in its proper perspective and dismissed notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff seeking injunction against the defendants. I do not find any reason to cause interference in a well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of any substance. 9. In the result, appeal from order is dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)