1 wp2070.08gp.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2070 OF 2008 Mohd. Aslam Shaikh & Ors. .....Petitioners Vs. The Chief Secretary (Housing) High Power Committee & Ors. ......Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 921 OF 2009 Mohid Zahur A. ...Petitioners Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S.G. Kudale for the Petitioners in WP No. 2070 of 2008 and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in WP No. 921 of 2009. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for Respondent No.1 in WP No. 2070 of 2008 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No. 921 of 2009. Mr. J.G. Aradwad for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP No. 2070 of 2008 and for Respondent No. 1 in WP No. 921 of 2009. Mr. Abdul Rab Shaikh for Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 2070 of 2008. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.G. Surana i/by Mr. C.N.Gole for Respondent No.5 in WP NO. 2070 OF 2008 and for the Petitioners in WP No. 921 of 2009. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2011. 2 wp2070.08gp.sxw ssm P.C.: The dispute in this batch of Petitions relates to the construction of permanent alternate accommodation for nine slum dwellers in a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme which has been developed under Development Control Regulation 33(10). In the present case, the letter of intent was initially issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 30 August 1997. In the original letter of intent, there was no provision for commercial units. On 10 September 1997, the first building plan was approved for rehabilitation. On 2 January 1998 the second rehabilitation building was sanctioned by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. According to the developer and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority the sanctioned building plan for the second building was for a composite building consisting of both rehabilitation and free sale tenements. According to them, on the ground floor, shops were approved in the free sale component. 2 Initially, the nine Petitioners had been held eligible only for the allotment of residential tenements in September 1999, February 2000, February 2001 and January 2002. The eligibility of the Petitioners was subsequently modified as a result of which five of them were held to be entitled to the allotment of residential-cum-commercial tenements, 3 wp2070.08gp.sxw ssm while four were held to be eligible for the allotment of commercial tenements. Accordingly, the plans for rehabilitation building No.1 were amended on 25 March 2003. The High Powered Committee, by its direction dated 15 March 2008, has directed the developer to accommodate all the nine occupants in a free sale building (building No.2). 3 Two petitions have been instituted before this Court. Writ Petition No. 2070 of 2008 is by the nine slum dwellers whereas, Writ Petition No. 921 of 2009 has been instituted by the Developer. On 20 July 2009, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to attempt to sort out the controversy between the builder and the slum dwellers. In pursuance thereof, an order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 13 August 2009. The CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has, after considering various options for settlement, accepted the action suggested by the developer. 4 At the hearing of these proceedings, counsel appearing on behalf of the nine slum dwellers submitted that the slum dwellers are not ready to accept alternate accommodation on the ground floor of 4 wp2070.08gp.sxw ssm rehabilitation building No.1 but, they are ready and willing to accept the alternate accommodation for four of the slum dwellers in Commercial units, on the ground floor as proposed by the CEO of Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Counsel appearing on behalf of slum dwellers however, submitted that the remaining five persons should also be provided with similar accommodation on the ground floor other than rehabilitation building No.1. 5 We are of the view that it is not possible for this Court to determine all the factual issues, which are sought to be raised in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We direct the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to apply his mind afresh to the question of rehabilitating the nine slum dwellers in accordance with their entitlements and to pass a fresh order after hearing all the concerned parties within a period of two weeks from today. The report of the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall thereupon be transmitted to the High Powered Committee. We direct that the High Powered Committee shall pass a fresh order after considering all the rival options, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the report of the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority after hearing the parties. The High Powered 5 wp2070.08gp.sxw ssm Committee shall make a fresh determination uninfluenced by its earlier order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. Since the issue relating to the rehabilitation of the nine slum dwellers has been pending for a considerable time, we find substance in the contention that a resolution should be made expeditiously so that each of the slum dwellers is given possession of commercial or, as the case may be commercial-cum-residential units in accordance with their entitlement. In order to ensure a time bound solution, we have issued directions for the passing of orders by the concerned authorities expeditiously. The time frame set-up in our order shall be strictly observed. We keep all the rights and contentions of the parties open. The High Powered Committee shall take into consideration all the rival contentions of the parties including the allegations of each of the slum dwellers in regard to the improper implementation of the scheme. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall expeditiously implement the decision of the High Powered Committee. 6 Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)