Case: KANTABAI VASANT AHIR Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

2. Respondent No. 3 is the owner of the land in Survey Nos.27, 28 and 29 admeasuring 12,381 sq. mts. at Wadgaon Sheri, Pune. An area of 4123 sq. mts. in Survey Nos. 27 and 28 was declared as a ?Slum? under Section 4(1) of the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1971 on 10.11.1983. Pursuant to the recommendation made by Afzalpurkar Committee to establish an independent authority for rehabilitation of slum dwellers, the Act was amended incorporating Chapter I-A by Act 4 of 1996.Respondent No.3 filed RCS No.365 of 2000 seeking eviction of Appellant No.1?s husband. Initially, Respondent No.3 averred in the suit that the Appellants were required to be evicted after permission was granted by the competent authority since the area occupied by Appellants was declared as a slum area. Respondent No.3 filed an Application for amendment of the plaint in which it was stated that the permission of the competent authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the Appellants was not required as the area under occupation of the Appellants was not a slum area. The Application for Amendment was allowed by the Small Causes Court, Pune by an order dated 06.02.2006.On 24.05.2006, Respondent No.1 passed an order declaring 5168.50 sq. mts. in Survey Nos.27 and 28 (Part) at Wadgaon Sheri (Ramwadi), Pune as a slum rehabilitation area. It was mentioned in the said order that 4123 sq. mts. falling within Survey Nos.27 and 28 (Part) was already declared as a slum area on 10.11.1983. By adding 1045.50 sq. mts. of undeclared area with 4123 sq. mts. of declared area, the area of the Scheme was shown as 5168.50 sq. mts. Thereafter, an order was passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 3D read with Section 12(4) of the Act on 01.09.2009 declaring 5168.50 sq. mts. in Survey Nos. 27 and 28 (Part) as Slum Clearance Area. The Appellants filed C.S.No.97 of 2013 before the City Civil Court, Pune, for declaration that the property in dispute was not a slum area and that Respondent No.1 lacked jurisdiction to declare the area as a slum. Respondent No.1 appeared before the court and produced the Orders dated 24.05.2006 and 01.09.2009 passed under Section 3C and 3D of the Act. Thereafter, the Appellants filed Appeal Nos. 24 and 25 of 2014 questioning the Orders dated 24.05.2006 and 01.09.2009. As stated above, the Tribunal partially allowed the Appeals and set aside the Orders dated 24.05.2006 and 01.09.2009 to the extent of 1045.50 sq. mts. of land.The Appellants were found by the Tribunal to be occupants of tenements in the disputed area and therefore, are persons aggrieved as contemplated under Section 3C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants were not given sufficient opportunity as provided in Section 36 of the Act before the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed. By holding that 1045.50 sq. mts. was not a declared area, the Tribunal set aside the Orders dated 24.05.2006 and 01.09.2009.The High Court reversed the Order of the Tribunal after a detailed consideration of the provisions of the Act and the facts of the case. The High Court held that a declaration of an area as a slum area under Section 4(1) of the Act is not required before proceedings are initiated under Chapter I-A of the Act. The High Court declared that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was discharging legislative functions while exercising powers under Sections 3A to 3D of the Act. The High Court was of the further opinion that no pre-decisional hearing prior to the issuance of declaration by the SRA under Section 3C of the Act is necessary. Moreover, the Appellants were not entitled to hearing as they were neither owners nor long term lessees. The scope of Section 12 of the Act as construed by the Appellants was not accepted by the High Court. The interpretation of Section 36 by the Tribunal was not accepted by the High Court. The Special Rules and Regulations governing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in the present case were relied upon to conclude that encumbered area can also be declared as rehabilitation area. The plea of mala fide made by the Appellants was also rejected by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
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.