1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2274 OF 2009 Vijay Dharma Khairnar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rajeev Patil i/b. S.S.Punde for petitioner Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with G.D.Utangale i/b. Utangale & Co. for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajeev Matkar with Himanshu Kode and Mr.Sachin Kadam for respondent No.2 Mr.S.A.Sawant with M.sGunjan Shah and Samir Suryawanshi for respondent No.4 Mr.Suresh Kumar with M.S.Bhardwaj for Union of India. CORAM : J.N.PATEL, Actg.C.J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30th April 2010. P.C.: 1] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are seven in number challenge the order passed by the High Powered Committee dated 9th June 2009 passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and the Letter of Intent dated 4th August 2006 issued by Slum Rehabilitation Authority so also the Commencement Certificate dated 15th April 2008 which are Annexures D, I (1) respectively. 2] The scheme of Slum Rehabilitation is in respect of Survey No. 2 209(part), 224 (part), 1/225 (part), 226 (part), 31 (part) and 991(part) of Worli division. 3] Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that C.T.S.991 which is sought to be included in this slum rehabilitation scheme was never a part of original scheme. The Developer has misled the authorities and has stated that this survey number is inadvertantly left out from the scheme. Mr.Patil submits that C.T.S.991 falls within CRZ -I and, therefore, cannot be subjected in any development activities. Mr.Patil has relied upon a letter dated 11th February 2008 addressed by M/s.Vora Associates, Architects who have sought clearance from the Authorities viz., the Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi. Mr.Patil submits that the letter dated 11th February 2008, a copy of which has now become available, does not mention in the subject column about the CTS 991. On the other hand, the letter of the same date produced before the Commissioner included this property in the subject column. He submits that contents of these letters are identical. Further, he submits that reference therein to the letter dated 7th February 2008 is also identical. If the Developer by misleading authorities and fabricating and forging documents has included this survey number, then, all decisions leading to grant of the letter of intent and commencement certificate are bad in law and deserve to be set aside. He submits that the petitioners are part of 25 persons who are residing in structures on CTS 991. The said structures were known as Janata Colony. He submits that out of 25 persons, petition is filed by 7 petitioners and all documents which are produced on record would demonstrate that the developer has by forging the record and 3 fabricating documents obtained the permission. For all these reasons, the letter of intent and commencement certificate should be set aside. 4] On the other hand, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the society and the developers have pointed out that it is not as if this is for the first time that such a grievance is made. In any event, prior to this development project being handed over to the present developer, the earlier developer had on the basis of the records sought the development permission and commencement certificate. He relied upon Annexure II which was prepared by none other than a public authority on the basis of public documents. Therein, he stated names of all 25 persons, including the petitioners, as residing on the plots wherein the scheme for slum rehabilitation is being implemented. He had included the very plot/ CTS 991. They submit that prior actions were subjected to challenge right upto this Court and the concerned persons have failed therein. Now, only seven persons are being put up so as to obstruct the development scheme and more particularly when the eligible slum dwellerrs are out of their structures for more than three years. For all these reasons, this grievance now should not be entertained. That will stall the scheme and deprive the eligible slum dwellers of their entitlement. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. 5] With the assistance of the Counsel appearing for parties, we have perused the subject letter of intent and commencement certificate. We have also been taken through the affidavit filed by respondent No.5. The submission is that in this affidavit, CTS No.991 is not stated to be part of 4 the scheme. This is an affidavit filed by Additional Director with the Regional Office of Ministry of Environment and Forests. Mr.Patil has relied upon another document, a copy of which is at page 97 of the paperbook. He submits that the slum rehabilitation authority on 11th February 2009 has stated that C.T.S. No.991 is not part of the slum rehabilitation scheme/ area. Mr.Patil had also invited our attention to the letters addressed by the office of Collector, Mumbai City stating therein that record pertaining to C.T.S.No.991 Worli has not been entered as Municipal Property. He, therefore, submits that the scheme is suspicious and a fraud has been committed by including this C.T.S. Number. 6] We are unable to accept this contention for obvious reasons. It has been pointed out to us by the Counsel appearing on behalf of society that at no stage these 25 persons whose names are included in Annexure II made a grievance and particularly of the nature now raised before us. Our attention has been invited to the additional written argument filed in Appeal No.954 of 2008 with connected appeals. One of the appellant is Vijay Khairnar who is petitioner before us together with Usha Khairnar. In this written argument, they have pointed out the structures of the appellant were part of vacant land tenure. The structures are tolerated and provisions of Circular 70 are applicable. They are ready and willing to pay commercial charges in respect of commercial shop in their possession which is more than 225 sft carpet and no survey has been carried out. Therefore, the survey be carried out and the area shown in the appeal is the correct area. If this document together with the Annexure II which has been prepared and which bears the signature of all officers concerned 5 with the development and rehabilitation scheme is taken into account, then, there is substance in the contention that CTS 991 is nothing but C.S. 205 (pt) and these are censured slums on municipal land. The number of structure, number of eligible slum dwellers and boundaries are set out. Pertinently, the columns 6 and 7 of Annexure II show that on the east side there is Janata colony. The local name is Belani Nagar and the proposed name is Shri Siddhi Sai Coop.Hsg. Society. This annexure bears all particulars and description of the scheme and on 7th June 2005 the Municipal Corporation had clarified through the Executive Engineer -III of SRA that the proposed slum rehabilitation scheme is of plot bearing C.S.No.209(part), 224(part), 1/225(part), 226(part), 231(part), 232(part) and 991 of Worli Division. The earlier DP remarks mentioned 205(part). But the Executive Engineer DP has clarified by his letter dated 6th April 2005 that C.S.No.205 (part) was mentioned inadvertantly and its correct number is C.S.991. 7] These are documents on record of different authorities from the year 2005. There is no reason to discard their contents and now accept the argument of Mr.Patil that the Developer has fraudulently included C.S.991 in the Slum Rehabilitation scheme. Some descrepancy in the documents and letters forwarded to Ministry of Environment and Forests seeking clearance would not be decisive. On the basis of such letters and documents and without anything more, there is no reason to disbelieve the public documents and records which have consistently stated that C.S.No.205(part) is erroneously mentioned and the correct number is C.S. 991. In these circumstances and when the petitioners have in the earlier 6 round, while challenging the documents and permissions including Annexure II, have stated that they would like to have larger area and on the basis of the same documents, then, it is difficult to accept their pleas raised belatedly and interfere with the scheme or set aside the letter of intent and the commencement certificate. We are of the opinion that the authority has committed no error in relying upon the records maintained by the office of the Collector and the Municipal Corporation and accepting the Annexure II. It is on the basis of this Annexure II that the SRA has granted necessary permissions. In our extra ordinary and discretionary so also equitable jurisdiction, we do not deem it proper to entertain factual disputes and that too on the basis some of documents now produced. For these reasons, we find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. ( Actg. CHIEF JUSTICE ) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)