Pramila Sumansingh Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

2. For rehabilitation of the slum dwellers living in distress the Legislature of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1966 Act') in terms whereof respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are treated to be planning authorities as would appear from Section 2(19) thereof.

(5) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority may appoint Committees consisting of its members and experts to facilitate its working and speedy implementation of the scheme prepared under section 3B."

21. F. Plot No.569, however, admeasures 9702 sq. mts. Indisputably in the year 1995 respondent No.6 filed an application for development of a part of Plot No.569 measuring 3205 sq. mtrs. of land. On 15th October, 19 1996 the Bombay Municipal Corporation granted a `no objection certificate' in its favour in requisite form i.e. Annexure-II in respect of F. Plot No.569 admeasuring 3205 sq. mtrs. including the four chawl which were known as Dholkwala Chawl. It gave all the particulars of eligible Slum dwellers and had granted consent to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

24. Indisputably on receipt of the said application, Slum Rehabilitation Authority called upon Bombay Municipal Corporation to clarify whether a certificate as envisaged under Annexure-II in respect of 32 dwellers of Dholkawala Chawl could be issued. Bombay Municipal Corporation rejected the said proposal stating that it had already issued Annexure-II in favour of respondent No.6 and all the 32 names had been appearing therein. 20 Indisputably a copy thereof had not been forwarded to the appellant which, as would be noticed hereinafter, will have some bearing.

28. A petition for grant of special leave was filed in April, 2006 against the order dated 29th March, 2006 which was dismissed by this Court by an 21 order dated 11th May, 2006 permitting the appellant to obtain interim protection from the High Court. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observation, the appellant again filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1473 of 2006 for grant of an interim relief. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by an order 22nd June, 2006 recording the statement made by the Authority that a final order on the appellant's application would be passed within seven days.

46. Such a provision, however, ex facie appears to be a mandatory one. The owner has no choice. He does not make an option. If for obtaining owner's consent, no provision exists, keeping in view the fact that the 1971 Act and the scheme applied to the entire State of Maharashtra, the legality of Regulation 5(3) only in respect of the Greater Bombay, may have to be considered. However, as at present advised, we need not pronounce our opinion in this case.

49. Contention of the appellant is that the same had not been communicated to her. It might not have been communicated to her, but whereas there may be some justification therefore. She did not refer thereto in her first and second writ application, but, even in the third writ 36 application, she did so as would appear from the statements made in paragraphs 2.22 and 2.23.

These 44 slum dwellers have given consent in favour of the developer Smt. Pramila Singh. You are therefore requested to consider issue of Ann - II in respect of those 44 slum dwellers as early as possible.

Dy. Collector Slum Rehabilitation Authority Copy to the Executive Engineer, SRA (IV) with a request to communicate whether there is any S.R. Scheme with ref. to the Ann - II earlier issued by the Ward Officer on 15/10/96."

51. The Corporation in its letter dated 31st August, 2001 stated:

However, you may contact Chief Engineer (D.P.) City for advise in the matter please."

55. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in their aforementioned letters both plot Nos. 559 and 569 had been mentioned but it must have been done on the basis of the other documents available on the record and not on the basis of Annexure II. It is not the case of the appellant that in fact a separate Annexure II had been enclosed with another letter at a different point of time. Prior to 8th August, no such statement was made. We having satisfied ourselves that the appellant did not annexe Annexure II in respect of plot No. 569 (part) along with her original application, we do not find any legal infirmity in the authority's impugned order dated 28th June, 2006.

57. Appellant in paragraph 2.16 of her writ application referred to the permission of the Deputy Commissioner himself to grant necessary sanction for retaining 1081 sq. m. of land appurtenant to final plot No. 569 (part).

62. For the reasons aforementioned, it is also not necessary for us to consider as to whether in the aforementioned situation, the appellant is entitled to any equitable relief vis-`-vis the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

64. We, therefore, agree with the judgment of the High Court, albeit for different reasons. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

December 19, 2008 48