Case: KANTABAI VASANT AHIR Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

and 3D of the Act. 17. Another submission made on behalf of the Appellants is that the Slum Clearance Order dated 01.09.2009 is vitiated as it is contrary to Section 12 of the Act. The basis for the said argument is that the clearance is made in respect 5168.50 sq. mts. which includes 1045.50 sq. mts. un-declared area. Section 12 as substituted by Section 3D of the Act enables the Chief Executive Officer to make a Clearance Order to a slum area after it has been declared to be a Slum Rehabilitation Area. The submission of Mr. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is that the words ?slum area? have been defined in Section 2(ga) to mean any area declared as such by the competent authority under Section 4(1). In the absence of a declaration of a slum area under Section 4(1), no action can be initiated under Section 3D of the Act. Mr. Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the phrase ?any slum area? in Section 12 is used in general parlance. He relied upon Section 2 of the Act which starts with the following ?in this Act unless the context otherwise requires?. In the context of Chapter I-A of the Act, the phrase ?slum area? used in Section 12(1) cannot have the same meaning as found in Section 2(ga). The Slum Clearance Order is passed under Section 3D and Section 12(1) after an area is declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C. Chapter I-A is a self- contained code dealing with Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. The words ?any slum area? in Section 12 are used in generic sense. Therefore, we do not accept the submission made on behalf of the Appellants that ?any slum area? in Section 12 is only that area which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act not being applicable to proceedings under Chapter I-A is a relevant factor to hold that the context warrants such interpretation. 18. The order dated 24.05.2006, passed under Section 3C of the Act was held to be vitiated by the Tribunal due to non-compliance of Section 36 of the Act. The manner of service of every notice, order or direction issued under the Act is provided under Section 36. A plain reading of Section 3C of the Act discloses that the declaration of a Slum Rehabilitation Area requires to be published in the official gazette. The Slum Rehabilitation Order under Section 3C shall also be given wide publicity. An appeal to the special Tribunal, against the Slum Rehabilitation Order, can be availed by any aggrieved person. Pursuant to the publication of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on 28.11.2005, a survey was conducted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to prepare a list of eligible slum dwellers. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the Appellants participated in the said survey and showed willingness to be a part of the scheme. A list of eligible slum dwellers was published on 18.04.2006 and names of the Appellants were found in the list which was published by affixing the same at a conspicuous place in the area on 12.05.2006. After the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed, the Appellants submitted objections on 26.05.2006, 21.06.2006, 20.07.2006 and 07.08.2006. Thereafter, the Appellants filed appeal No.24 of 2014 under Section 3C (2) of the Act, challenging the order dated 24.05.2006 which was partially allowed. 19. There is no requirement of issuance of notice prior to the declaration under Section 3C. The Tribunal committed an error in relying upon Section 36 to hold that the appellants were entitled to a notice before order dated 24.05.2006 was passed. Section 36 only deals with the manner in which notice issued under the Act is to be served. No complaint of violation of principles of natural justice can be made by the Appellants as there is no violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 3C. That apart, the remedy resorted to by the Appellants under Section 3C(2) resulted in their favor. There is no prejudice caused to the Appellants. The complaint of the Appellants that they should have been given an opportunity before the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed cannot be entertained. 20. Clause (d) of the Special Rules and Regulations for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the jurisdiction of Slum Rehabilitation Authority for Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad area is as follows:"D) Definition of slum and Rehabilitation Area: Where the CEO (SRA) is satisfied that any area is or may be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood, by person of the area having inadequate or no basic amenities or being insanity, squalid, overcrowded or otherwise, or the buildings in any area used or intended to be used for human habitation area in any respect until for human habitation by reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors, detrimental to the health, safety or convenience of the pubic of that area is defined as Slum. This shall form the basic parameter for declaration of the rehabilitation area. Further that any such area, encumbered or unencumbered, that the CEO(SRA) may require for implementation of SRS proposal, shall be declared as rehabilitation area."21. It is clear that even encumbered area shall be declared as a rehabilitation area provided the Slum Rehabilitation Authority requires the said area for implementation of the Scheme. Admittedly, the disputed area of 1045.50 sq. mts. is adjacent to the declared area and is required for effective implementation of the Scheme. The contention of the Appellant that the declaration of 1045.50 sq. mts. under Section 3C of the Act is in colourable exercise of power is not acceptable. In view of the aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to deal with other contentions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]There is no dispute that the declared area is only to an extent of 4123 sq. mts. The entire area of 5168.50 sq. mts. was declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C which falls in Chapter I-A. As stated above, Section 3D provides that Chapter II has no application to orders passed under Chapter I-A. Section 4(1) of the Act is in Chapter II. Therefore, it is not necessary that an area should be notified under Section 4 as slum area before proceedings under Chapter I-A are initiated. Hence, we do not agree with the Appellants that a notification under Section 4 is a pre- requisite for orders to be passed under Sections 3C and 3D of thewords ?any slum area? in Section 12 are used in generic sense. Therefore, we do not accept the submission made on behalf of the Appellants that ?any slum area? in Section 12 is only that area which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act not being applicable to proceedings under Chapter I-A is a relevant factor to hold that the context warrants such interpretation.There is no requirement of issuance of notice prior to the declaration under Section 3C. The Tribunal committed an error in relying upon Section 36 to hold that the appellants were entitled to a notice before order dated 24.05.2006 was passed. Section 36 only deals with the manner in which notice issued under the Act is to be served. No complaint of violation of principles of natural justice can be made by the Appellants as there is no violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 3C. That apart, the remedy resorted to by the Appellants under Section 3C(2) resulted in their favor. There is no prejudice caused to the Appellants. The complaint of the Appellants that they should have been given an opportunity before the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed cannot be entertained.It is clear that even encumbered area shall be declared as a rehabilitation area provided the Slum Rehabilitation Authority requires the said area for implementation of the Scheme. Admittedly, the disputed area of 1045.50 sq. mts. is adjacent to the declared area and is required for effective implementation of the Scheme. The contention of the Appellant that the declaration of 1045.50 sq. mts. under Section 3C of the Act is in colourable exercise of power is not acceptable. In view of the aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to deal with other contentions.