Lullu Vas (Since Deceased) Through Lrs ... vs The State Of Maharashtra

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are as follows:

5. In 1996, the slum dwellers residing on the said land formed a co­ operative housing society “New Sagar Vihar” (respondent no. 4) and submitted a proposal for slum rehabilitation to the SRA, and the same was approved by issuing a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as “LoI”) and an Intimation of Approval (hereinafter referred to as “IoA”) on 16.06.1999. In furtherance of the above, a commencement certificate was issued on 13.10.1999 and respondent no. 4 appointed a developer (respondent no. 5) and 3 promoter for the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme and to build new flats.

7. Mr. Shailesh Chheda thereafter approached the HPC in Appeal No. 148 of 2008, seeking quashing of the order dated 16.06.1999 granting LoI in favour of the respondents no. 4 and 5. The HPC, upon hearing the parties, vide order dated 20.06.2009 concluded that the land belonged to the respondent no. 3 (MCGM) and the appellants are lessees for 999 years. However, as the LoI had lapsed and respondents no. 4 and 5 had filed a separate application for revalidation of the LoI dated 16.06.1999 before the 4 SRA, the HPC directed the SRA to hear both the parties and pass orders on the merits of the case. It may be noted that the aforesaid first order of the HPC has not been challenged by the Respondents.

8. Vide order dated 23.08.2010, the CEO, SRA, after hearing both sides, revalidated the LoI in favour of the respondents no. 4 and 5. The above order of revalidation by the SRA was challenged by the appellants in Appeal No. 2 of 2011 before the HPC. This appeal was allowed by order dated 05.02.2011 and consequently, the order of the CEO, SRA dated 23.08.2010, was set aside. Consequently, vide order dated 06.09.2013, the SRA allowed the application preferred by the appellants seeking to record the scheme.

9. Subsequent to the aforesaid order of the SRA, respondent no. 2 (MCGM) issued letter dated 17.01.2015 withdrawing/cancelling its earlier orders, decisions and communications which were claimed as acceptance of the claim of late Lullu Vas as lessees, observing that the claims were founded upon erroneous representation based on legally inadmissible documents. It was found that not only were the lease documents invalid for want of adequate seal 5 and signature, but also that the appellants had failed to make any effort to remove the encroachments. Moreover, in the absence of a registered lease deed, neither the original applicant nor the appellants herein have any rights whatsoever in the disputed property.

10. Aggrieved, the appellants filed LC Suit No. 456 of 2016 in the City Civil Court, challenging the aforesaid letter dated 17.01.2015 issued by respondent no. 2 to be illegal and void. Additionally, the appellants also sought for a declaration that they are the lessees of MCGM. It is to be noted that this suit is still pending final adjudication. In the said suit, the appellants had filed Notice of Motion No. 1110 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction against the respondents from obstructing or disturbing the appellants’ possession. Vide order dated 07.03.2018, the Notice of Motion was partly allowed and the respondent no. 2 and 4 were temporarily restrained, pending suit, from acting upon or implementing the decision/communication dated 17.01.2015.

13. The High Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, observed that at the time the application was preferred by Lullu Vas, the disputed property was already encroached upon by slum dwellers. The numbers of these slum dwellers kept on increasing due to the inaction of the appellants. In light of the same, the appellants’ plea seeking execution of the lease in their favour stood frustrated and the appellants therefore could not object to the redevelopment of the said land. Moreover, the slum dwellers agreed to join the 7 rehabilitation scheme and 70% of the dwellers appointed respondent no. 5 as their developer in compliance with Clauses 1.11 and 1.15 of Appendix­IV of the Development Control Regulations. On the other hand, the appellants failed to show any such compliance. Furthermore, taking into account the delay in implementation of the rehabilitation scheme, the High Court rejected the appellants’ plea seeking a stay on the redevelopment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellants have preferred this Special Leave Petition.

12. Vide order dated 07.06.2018, the court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 by setting aside the order of the HPC dated 05.02.2011, and quashing and setting aside the consequential orders or letters of the SRA dated 06.06.2011 and 06.09.2013.

33. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant the appellants the liberty to make such a prayer, 21 supported by relevant materials, before the trial court in the pending suit being LC Suit No. 456 of 2016. Further, the appellants are granted the liberty to implead necessary parties before the trial court. The trial court is at liberty to consider such relief in accordance with law.

34. In view of the pending civil suit, any observation made by the High Court which affects the merit of the matter is hereby set aside. Any observations made herein shall not act in prejudice against the appellants during the trial on merits.

35. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In light of this Judgment, it is not necessary to pass any orders in the Contempt Petition no. 123 of 2019 preferred by the appellants, which hereby stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.