Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

35. Appeals (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, any person aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Competent Authority, may appeal to the Appellate Authority, who shall be a person holding a post not below the rank of Additional Collector, in respect of the areas of Municipal Corporations and "A" Class Municipal Councils, and not below the rank of Deputy Collector, in respect of areas of other Municipal Councils, to be notified by the State Government, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of such notice, order or direction.; (1A) Any person,- (a) aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Appellate Authority under sub-section (1), may file an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice, order or direction, before the Grievance Redressal Committee; (b) aggrieved by any notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or approval issued or given by the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority or any Officer to whom the powers are delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, may file an appeal within thirty days of receipt of such notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or approval, before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. (2) Every appeal under this Act shall be made by petition in writing accompanied by a copy of the notice, order or direction appealed against. (3) Any appeal shall not operate as a stay order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Authority may grant by reasoned order, nor shall execution of any other be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from, but the Appellate Authority may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such order and if the notice, order or direction against which appeal is made and is set aside by Appellate Authority on an appeal disobedience thereto shall not be deemed to be an offence. (4) No appeal shall be decided under this section unless the appellant had been heard or has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person or through a legal practitioner. (5) The decision of the [Grievance Redressal Committee and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee] on appeal shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.

30) Invoking the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 35(1A)(b) of Slum Act, Appeal No.57/2024 was filed by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2025 seeking following prayers:

19. In the circumstances, the Appellants pray that:a) this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to call the record and proceedings; b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to carve out the area of land being Survey No.502/A, admeasuring 3.39.0 HR situated at Paach Pakhadai, Taluka & District Thane out of the total area mentioned in Letter of Intent dated 07.05.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1. c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify the Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 07.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 and Notification dated 27.10.2016, Corrigendum dated 30.05.2018, Annexure-II dated 06.05.2022 and other permissions granted in favour of Respondent No.6 by excluding the area admeasuring 3.39.0 HR out of Survey No.502/A (Pt) situated at Paach Pakhadai, Taluka & District Thane. d) this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to quash and set aside the Notification dated 27.10.2016, Corrigendum dated 30.05.2018, Annexure-II dated 06.05.2022 and Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 07.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 to the extent of Appellants land bearing Survey No.502/A, admeasuring 3.39.0 HR situated at Paach Pakhadi, Taluka & Dist. Thane. e) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to grant stay to the operation, implementation and effect of the Notification dated 27.10.2016, Corrigendum dated 30.05.2018, Annexure-II dated 06.05.2022 and Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 07.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 to the extent of Appellants land bearing Survey No.502/A, admeasuring 3.39.0 HR situated at Paach Pakhadi, Taluka & Dist. Thane; f) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) above; g) to pass any such other and further orders as your Lordship deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. h) Cost be granted

31) Thus, in Appeal No. 57/2024, the main prayer of the Petitioners was to carve out area of land admeasuring 3.39 Hectares in Survey No.502/A from the LOI dated 7 December 2022. The LOI dated 7 December 2022 has been placed on record by Respondent No.6- Developer alongwith its Affidavit-in-Reply, which is for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on land bearing Survey No. 502/A(Pt), 67, 83/4, 84/1 to 7 (Pt) at Village-Panch Pakhadi, Thane. Thus, what Petitioners desired in their Appeal No. 57/2023 is to exclude the entire area of Survey No. 502/A from the ambit of LOI dated 7 December 2022. The area of land bearing Survey No.502/A as per 7/12 extract is 3.39 Hectares. Petitioners also challenged Notification dated 27 October 2016 issued under the provisions of Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act. Under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, the CEO/SRA is empowered to make a declaration of any land as ‘Slum Rehabilitation Area’ for implementation of SRS. Section 3C provides thus: 3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area. (1) As soon as may be, after the publication of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on being satisfied about the circumstances in respect of any land, whether or not previously declared as slum area, justifying its declaration as the Slum Rehabilitation Area which may include community economic activity area, for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, shall after giving the land owners, including any public authorities or local bodies under the State Government constituted under any law enacted by the State Legislature, thirty days notice and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order published in the Official Gazette, and thereafter within forty-five days, declare such land to be a "Slum Rehabilitation Area". The order declaring the Slum Rehabilitation Area (hereinafter referred to as "the slum rehabilitation order"), shall also be given wide publicity in such manner as may be specified by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in such Slum Rehabilitation Area, the permission or the No Objection Certificate of the land owning authority or agency shall not be required: Provided that, only in respect of any land which is required for Vital Public Project purpose, as per orders of the State Government and where the State Government either directly or through any public authority has undertaken the responsibility of relocation and rehabilitation of the protected and other occupiers of the building, then the Chief Executive Officer shall, exclude the land required for Vital Public Project from the Slum Rehabilitation Area and issue an order to omit such land from the Slum Rehabilitation Area. Where the State Government either directly or through any public authority has undertaken the responsibility of relocation and rehabilitation of the protected and other occupiers of the building, such public authority shall prepare the Scheme of such rehabilitation or relocation and get it approved by the Chief Executive Officer within the period specified in the Scheme which shall not be more than ninety days. (2) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Chief Executive Officer may, within thirty days of the publication of such slum rehabilitation order, prefer an appeal to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. The decision of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in such appeal shall be final. (3) On the completion of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Slum Rehabilitation Area shall cease to be such area.

32) The Notification dated 27 October 2016 was issued by the CEO/SRA declaring 12 parcels of land in Village-Panch Pakhadi as ‘Slum Rehabilitation Area’ under the provisions of Section 3C(1) of the

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Slum Act. For the purpose of the present petition, only 4 parcels of the   │
│ land at Serial Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 [Survey Nos. 67, 502/A(Pt), 83/4(Pt),    │
│ 84/1 to 7 (Pt)] are relevant. Out of the said four parcels of lands,       │
│ Petitioners are concerned with only land admeasuring Survey No.502/A       │
│ (Pt) and they desired exclusion of the entire land admeasuring 3.39        │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

13. The reason for reproducing some of the contents over here is, this gives the exact position of the title of the land. When the extension was not obtained, the lease grant expired on 01/01/50. No doubt possessory rights are with the grantees. Plaintiff is one of those. It means he does not have any title in respect of the land beneath the suit tenement. It is also necessary to see what P.W.[2] and P.W.[3] has said in respect of this issue in their oral evidence. In examination in chief P.W.[2] stated that the property bearing no.912063[4] stands in the name of plaintiff. But in his cross examination is admitted that entire Chirag Nagar is the government property.

14. P.W.[3] also in his cross examination admitted that Survey No. 502/A is a Government Land for “Gurcharan”. He further stated that entire Chiragnagar is occupied by unauthorised structures. He further admitted that government land cannot be rented out. (emphasis added)

40) The suit preferred by the Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal, which was premised on the claim of title, was dismissed by the Trial Court by decree dated 8 April 2010. Civil Appeal No. 125/2010 was preferred by him challenging the Trial Court’s decree before the District Court, Thane. The appeal was however dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1 July 2014 by recording following findings: So after careful scrutiny of the document mentioned here-in-above, it is clear that the land under the structure is government land [Gurcharan S.No. 502/A (Part)]. The notification of the slum of the said land is also on record (No Exhibit is given, but it is on document page no.63). So admittedly the land S. No. 502/A(part) is slum on government land. (emphasis added)

41) Thus, the claim of ownership of Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal based on Village Specimen No. 2 has already been negatived by the Civil Court. The issue that arises for consideration is whether he can be permitted to claim title in respect of the land before the AGRC ? The answer to the question appears to be in the emphatic negative. Having failed to establish title before the Civil Court, Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal cannot be permitted to scuttle the implementation of slum scheme by raising claim of ownership before AGRC. It was too adventurous on his part to expect that AGRC would set aside declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area by issuing him certificate of title.

42) Additionally, in support of their claim of being the allotees of the plots of land, Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 have relied on various other documents such as:

(i) Electricity bill showing supply as on 3 August 1988.

(ii) Receipt towards payment of non-agricultural tax dated 5 June 2023.

(iii) Municipal Assessment Bills for the year 2023-

2024.

(iv) Receipt issued by Thane Municipal Council for supply of water.

(v) Property tax receipt issued by Thane Baro

43) These documents may prove occupation of structures situated on the land bearing Survey No.502/A. The issue is whether all these documents can be considered for the purpose of acceptance of claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 as owners of the land. Answer to the question appears, to my mind, to be in the negative. Those documents would only help those Petitioners for proving occupation of structures by them for a long time. However, inference of title cannot be drawn in absence of production of any valid allotment order issued by the Collector allotting any portion of the land in favour of any of the Petitioners. What must be borne in mind is that the land belongs to the Government as per the revenue entries. Therefore, the only manner in which government can dispose of the land is through making an order of allotment. Mere social background of Petitioners as tribals would not be a reason for raising a surmise that occupation of structures would automatically mean allotment of lands in their names.

44) It appears that claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 in respect of title has been repeatedly rejected by the revenue authorities. It appears that Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal had filed complaint with SRA against implementation of slum scheme by claiming ownership of Petitioners in land bearing Survey No.502/A. Since the claim was based on occupancy of land admeasuring 4774.17 sq. mts. as tribals, CEO/SRA wrote letter dated 4 January 2024 to the Collector calling for a detailed report as to whether provisions of Sections 36 and 36A of the Code were applicable to any portion of land in Survey No.502/A. District Collector, Thane, had called upon Tahsildar to make an enquiry by letter dated 6 February 2024. Tahsildar conducted enquiry and submitted report dated 16 February 2024 as under: क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि -R-२३४४/२०२४. वि नांक: १६/०२/२०२४ प्रति, ना. जिजल्हाति कारी ठाणे (क ु ळ विह ाट शाखा) वि षय:- झोपडपट्टी पुन स/न योजना झोपडपट्टी पुन/ सन क्षेत्रा आवि ासी यांच्या हरक ीबाब. सं र्भ/:- आपलेकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/-१/टे-२/टेनन्सी/कवि /एसआर-३/२०२४, वि.६/२/२०२४ रोजीचे पत्र. उपरोक्त वि षयांचे सं र्भिर्भय पत्रान् ये श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भूयाळ स्थाविनक रविह ाशी से ा संघ इ र यांनी मा. मुख्य काय/कारी अति कारी मुंबई महानगरप्र ेश झोपडपट्टी प्राति करण यांचेकडे क े लेल्या क्रारी अजा/च्या अनुषंगाने मौजे पाचपाखाडी येथील स नं.५०२/अ सं र्भा/ ील ७/१२, फ े रफार, विबनशे ी आ ेश आ श्यक काग पत्रासह अह ाल सा र करणेबाब विन Jश वि लेले आहे. त्याअनुषंगाने लाठी सजा पाचपाखाडी यांचंमाफ / सवि स् र चौकशी क े ली अस ा त्यांनी त्यांचेकडील पत्र क्र.पा.पा/पत्र/बाविन.१८८/२०२४, वि.१६/२/२०२४ अन् ये सोब ची सहपत्रे पाह ा खालीलप्रमाणे स् ुस्थिस्थ ी वि सून ये े. मौजे, पाचपाखाडी येथील स नं.५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३.३९.० हे आर चे अति कार अभिर्भलेख पासले अस ा स र जमीन मुळपासून गुरचरण जमीन आहे. सचे स नं.५०२/अ बाब गा चा नमुना ोन म ील नों क्र.१५६ े १६६ ला कलेक्टर नं.lnd. sr १२३१ वि.२७/३/५० लग प्रा.नं.lnd २०२३ वि.३०/३/५० ा.Ind sr ३२९ वि.४/४ नुसार नों ी ाखल आहे. सेच नों क्र. २०० े २१० ला प्रां हु नं.lnd sr I २१३१ वि.८/६/५१ ा. Ind sr iii १८३ वि.२८/६/५१ नुसार नों ी असून त्यांची नक्कल सोब जोडली आहे. त्यांन र गा ी फ े रफार क्र.४५९८ वि.११/१०/२०२४ नुसार महाराष्ट्र शासन महसूल न वि र्भाग यांचेकडील परिरपत्रक क्र. जमीन १०९१/७१३/प्र.क्र.५९/ज-१ वि.१४/१२/१९९८ लग मा. जिजल्हाति कारी ठाणे यांचेकडील पत्र क्र.महसूल/क-१/टे-२/कावि -f ११६२६९४७१५४२७८ वि.३०/८/२०२१ लग या काया/लयाकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि - ९२१५/२०२४/१२४६ वि.२९/९/२०२१ प्रमाणे स र जमीन कब्जे ार स री गुरचरण ही नों कमी करुन महाराष्ट्र शासन अशी नों ाखल आहे. सेच इ र हक्काल महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र अति सूचना क्र.झो.पु.प्रा/उजिज.-२/तिचरागनगर /२०१६/१७२ वि.३/९/२०१६ नुसार झोपडपट्टी पुन स/न योजना क्षेत्र ३३२०० चौ.मी. अशी नों ाखल आहे. सेच आजरोजी अति कार अभिर्भलेख ७/१२ प्रमाणे मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा. जिज ठाणे येथील स नं.५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३.३९.०० हे आर ही जमीन कोणत्याही आवि ासी व्यक्तीच्या ना े ाखल असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही. त्यामुळे गा अभिर्भलेखाची पड ाळणी क े ली अस ा स र जमीन कलम ३६, ३६अ ला पात्र असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही. री मौजे पाचपाखाडी येथील स नं.५०२/अ चे विपकपाहणी ७/१२ चालू ७/१२ स / फ े रफार फ े रफार क्र.४५९८ वि.११/१०/२०२४ च्या संतिचक े ची छायांविक प्र सोब जोडून सा र करी आहो. पुढील सवि नय सा र री प्रकरणी रीलप्रमाणे स् ुस्थिस्थ ी श/क अह ाल सा र करी आहो. सोब लाठी सुजा पाचपाखाडी यांचेकडील अह ाल जोडला आहे.

45) The Collector accordingly wrote back to CEO/SRA on 15 October 2024 stating as under: मौजे पाचपाखाडी येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे आर चे अति कार अभिर्भलेख पासले अस ा स र जमीन मुळपासून गुरचरण जमीन आहे. सेच स.नं. ५०२/अ बाब गा चा नमुना ोन म ील नों क्र. १५६ े १६६ ला कलेक्टर नं. Ind. Sr १२३१ वि. २७/३/५० लग प्रा.नं. Ind २०२३ वि. ३०/३/५० ा. Ind sr ३२९ वि.४/४ नुसार नों ी ाखल आहे. सेच नों क्र. २०० े २१० ला प्रां हु नं. Ind sr I २१३१ वि. ८/५/५१ ा. Ind sr iii १८३ वि. २८/६/५१ नुसार नों ी असून त्यांची नक्कल सोब जोडली आहे. त्यानं र गा ी फ े रफार क्र. ४५९८ वि. ११/१०/२०२४ नुसार महाराष्ट्र शासन महसूल न वि र्भाग यांचेकडील परिरपत्रक क्र. जमीन १०९१/७१३/प्र.क्र.५९/ज-१ वि. १४/१२/१९९८ लग मा. जिजल्हाति कारी ठाणे यांचेकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/कावि /१६२६९४७१५४२७८ वि. ३०/०८/२०२१ लग हसील ार ठाणे काया/लयाकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि - ९२१५/२०२४/१२४६ वि. २९/०९/२०२१ प्रमाणे स र जमीन कब्जे ार स री गुरचरण ही नों कमी करुन महाराष्ट्र शासन अशी नों ाखल आहे. सेच इ र हक्का महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र अति सूचना क्र.झो.पु.प्रा/उजिज-२/तिचरागनगर/२०१६/१७२ वि.०३/०९/२०१६ नुसार झोपडपट्टी पुन स/न योजना क्षेत्र ३३२०० चौ.मी. अशी नों ाखल आहे. सेच आज रोजी अति कार अभिर्भलेख ७/१२ प्रमाणे मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे.आर. ही जमीन कोणत्याही आवि ासी व्यक्तीच्या नां े ाखल असल्याच वि सून ये नाही. त्यामुळे गा अभिर्भलेखाची पड ाळणी क े ली अस ा स र जमीन कलम ३६ ३६अ ला पात्र असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही असे हसील ार ठाणे यांनी आपल्या अह ाला नमु क े ले आहे. सेच हजिसल ार ठाणे यांनी त्यांचेकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि. R ९६०/२०२४/२३६ वि. ०२/०२/२०२४ अन् ये आवि ासी बां ांच्या हरक ीबाब मौजे पांचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२अ या जविमनीबाब फ े रफार विनहाय स् ुस्थिस्थ ी श/क अह ाल उपजिजल्हाति कारी सक्षम प्राति कारी, मुंबई महानगर प्र ेश, झोपडपट्टी पुन /सन प्राति करण, ठाणे-२ यांचेकडे सा र क े ला आहे. हजिसल ार ठाणे यांचा अह ाल उपलब् अभिर्भलेखाचे अ लोकन कर ा प्रश्नाति न जविमनीच्या गा न नं.२ म ील घरांसाठी झोपडयांसाठी असलेल्या नां ोच्या अनुषंगाने काग पत्रे लाठी सजा पाचपाखाडी, हजिसल काया/लय ठाणे, उपवि र्भागीय अति कारी ठाणे जिजल्हाति कारी काया/लया काया/लया उपलब् नाही. श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भुयाळ रा.लक्ष्मी तिचरागनगर, पोखरण रोड नं.१ ठाणे यांनी मा. राज्य मान ी हक्क आयोग, मुंबई यांचेकडे वि नांक १३/११/२००७ रोजी अज/ ाखल क े ला हो ा स र अजा/ त्यानी मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२ अ एक ू ण क्षेत्र ३-३९-०० हे. आर पैको गां. नं.नं.२ मध्ये नमु नों ी प्रमाणे २२ आवि ासींची नों ७/१२ उ ा- र होणेबाब मागणी क े ली. स र अजा/च्या अनुषंगाने मा. राज्य माविह ी आयोग यांचेकडील प्रकरण क्र. ४३१६/२००/३३२ वि नांक २३/०१/२००८ अन् ये वि नांक २०/०२/२००८ रोजी सुना णी ठे ण्या आली. श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भुयाळ यांनी राज्य मान ी हक्क आयोग मुंबई यांचेकडे क े लेल्या अजा/नुसार प्रकरण क्र. ४३१६/२००/३३२ वि. २२/०२/२००८ रोजी सुना णी होऊन वि नांक ०३ माच/ २००८ रोजी प्रकरणी वि लेल्या आ ेशा खालील प्रमाणे नमु क े ले आहे. Applicant present. On behalf of respondent Shri. M. Y. Bhoite present. Applicant vide his letter di. 13/11/07 has complaint regarding “७/१२ च्या उ ा-या र नों होणेचाय ”. During the hearing respondent express the satisfaction of the case vide her report dated 01/03/08. The applicant express satisfaction about the development and express thanks to the Commission for the prompt action taken on this Commission and request then the matter be close. The request accepted and the matter closed under sec. 17(1)(b) of Protection of Human Rights Act. 1993. राज्य मान ी हक्क आयोग मुंबई यांचेकडील उपरोक्त पारी आ ेश अज/ ार श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भुयाळ यांचे मागणी अज/ गां. नं.नं.२ मध्ये नमु नों ीच्या अनुषंगाने या काया/लयाचे वि. २२/०४/२००८ वि. १६/११/२०१२ रोजीच्या पत्रान् ये अह ाल मा. वि र्भागीय आयुक्त, कोंकण र्भ न माफ / शासनास सा र करणे आला. थाविप प्रकरणी शासनामाफ / अंति म आ ेश प्राप्त झालेले नाही. द्नं र महाराष्ट्र (झोपडपट्टी सु ारणा, विनमू/लन आभिण पुनर्वि कास) अति विनयम १९७१ अन् ये ठाणे महानगरपालिलका क्षेत्रासाठी झोपडपट्टी पुन /सन योजना यार करुन वि नांक १७ माच/ २०१६ रोजी राजपत्रा प्रजिसचा क े ली असून स र योजने मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२ अ एक ू ण क्षेत्र ३-३९-०० हे.आर पैकी ३३२००.५८ थी मी चा समा ेश करणे आला आहे. मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे.आर. या जविमनीच्या ७/१२ स री मंजूर फ े रफार क्र. ४५९८ वि.११/१०/२०२१ अन् ये र्भोग ट ार स री गुरुचरण अशी नों कमी करुन महाराष्ट्र शासन अशी नों ाखल करणे आली असून इ र हक्का महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्रा अति सूचना क्र.झो.पु.प्रा./उजिज-२/तिचरागनगर/२०१६/१७२ वि नांक २७/१०/२०१६ नुसार “झोपडपट्टी पुन/ सन योजना” क्षेत्र ३३२००.५८ चौ.मी. अशी नों करणे आली आहे. स र जविमनीच्या मुळ गां नमुना नं. २ चे अ लोकन कर ा गां नं. २ हे इ र कायम उत्पन्नाचे रजिजस्टर आहे. स र रजिजस्टर (नो ी ही) म ील नों ी नमु आ ेश हे विबनशे ी पर ानगी आ ेश नसल्याने स र आ ेशाचा अंमल मौजे पाचपाखाडी, ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२अ एक ू ण क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे. आर. या जविमनीच्या ७/१२ स री वि सून ये नाही स र जमीनीच्या ७/१२ स री सन् १९२१ पयs गुरुचरण अशी नों असल्याने स र जविमनीच्या अति कार अभिर्भलेखानुसार स र जमीन कलम ३६. ३६अ ला पात्र असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही. मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३३२००.५८ चौ.मी. क्षेत्रा र महाराष्ट्र झोपडपट्टी (सु ारणा, विनमू/लन आभिण पुनर्वि कास) अति विनयम -१९७१ च्या र ु ी लागु असून संपूण/ क्षेत्र झोपडपट्टीने व्याप असलेने स र जागे र राहणारे आवि ासी बां हे बेघर होणार नाही सेच त्यांना महाराष्ट्र झोपडपट्टी (सु ारणा, विनमू/लन आभिण पुनर्वि कास) अति विनयम १९७१ च्या प्रचलिल ोरणानुसार अनुज्ञेय योग्य लार्भ ेणेबाब आपलेमाफ / काय/ ाही करा ी.

46) Thus CEO/SRA has satisfied himself about absence of ownership claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 in land bearing Survey No.502/A.

47) It appears that while complaining to CEO/SRA against implementation of SRS on land bearing Survey No.502/A, Petitioners had also filed applications before the Tahsildar on 12 February 2024 for mutation of their names in the revenue records. By letter dated 14 November 2024, Tahsildar rejected the request stating as under: आपण मौजे पांचपाखाडी, ा. जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ या जविमनीचे ७/१२ स री र्भूमीहीन आवि ासींचे ना ाची नों करणेबाब मा. जिजल्हाति कारी, ठाणे यांचे काया/लयाकडे क े लेला अज/ मा. उपवि र्भागीय अति कारी, ठाणे वि र्भाग, ठाणे यांचेकडील सं र्भिर्भय पत्रान् ये या काया/लयास प्राप्त झालेला आहे. प्रस् ु पत्राचे अनुषंगाने मंडळ अति कारी, ठाणे यांचेमाफ / सवि स् र चौकशी क े ली अस ा, मंडळ अति कारी, ठाणे यांनी त्यांचेकडील पत्र क्र.जिस.ओ.टी/ शी-४६/२०२४, वि.२३/१०/२०२४ अन् ये या काया/लयाकडे अह ाल सा र क े लेला आहे. स रचा अह ाल सोब ची सहपत्रे पाह ा, खालीलप्रमाणे स् ुस्थिस्थ ी वि सून ये े. मौजे पांचपाखाडी, ा. जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२ अ ही जमीन सद्यस्थिस्थ ीमध्ये महाराष्ट्र शासनाचे मालकीची असून इ र हक्कामध्ये महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र अति सूचना क्र. झो. पु. प्रा./उजिज-२/तिचराग नगर/२०१६/१७२, वि.०३/०९/२०१६ नुसार झोपडपट्टी पुन स/न योजना क्षेत्र ३३२००.५८ चौ. मी. अशी नों आहे. स रची जागा झोपडपट्टी पुनर्वि कास योजनेकरी ा आरतिक्ष असल्याने आपली वि नं ी मान्य कर ा येणार नाही. सबब आपला उपरोक्त वि षयाचा अज/ या काया/लयाचे स् रा र विनकाली काढणे ये आहे.

48) It appears that separate application was filed by Shri Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal on 9 August 2024 for allotment of portions of land in Survey No.502/A on ownership basis, which again was rejected by the Tahsildar by a separate communication dated 14 November 2024.

49) The above documents will clearly indicate that Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 are well aware of the fact that they need to secure order for allotment of the land in their favour from the State Government. The State Government has refused to allot the land in their favour. Therefore, mere reliance on documents such as Village Specimen No.2 or electricity bills, Municipal assessment bills, water charges bills, etc. would be irrelevant for the purpose of drawl of inference of ownership of land by those Petitioners.

50) It is sought to be contended that the AGRC has failed to apply its mind to various documents relied upon by the Petitioners in Appeal No.57 of 2024 and that the issue of title of Petitioners has been entirely sidetracked by the AGRC. I am unable to agree. Though briefly, AGRC has considered their claim of title and has recorded following findings:

47. From the record, it further appears that, the 7/12 Extract of the plot of land bearing Survey No. 502/A(pt), 67, 83/4,84/1 to 7(pt) clearly indicate that, the Subject Property is owned by the Government of Maharashtra and Appellants did not have any title document to indicate their ownership in respect of said plot of land.

51. Survey No. 502/A has about 1848 numbers of hutments on it. And there are merely 14 slum dwellers who are claiming to be tribals. As per the documents submitted by the Appellants, some land was shown as Gurucharan land and some part of the land has been allotted to certain persons for non-agricultural purpose viz construction of a hut The alleged tribals occupancy on the subject property was permissible for a period till year 1991. There is village Form-2 for non-agricultural assessment showing these details and apart from this extract, there is no documents to show their names as Bhogwatedar of the subject property with these slum dwellers. As on today, Village Form-2 does not bear names of alleged tribals.

52. Tahsildar, Thane by its order dated 02.02.2024 confirmed that claims of alleged tribals cannot be granted with remark that there is existence of slum on the subject plot of land.

53. Appellant never tried to vacate the subject plot of land occupied by the slum dwellers but are now claiming entire vacant land which has been vacated by the Respondent after following due process of law for the redevelopment of the subject S. R. Scheme.

54. The Appellant are not able to produce any documentary evidence of ownership of the said land. Order of Human Right Commission, Communication from Collector or other Revenue Officer were not acted upon and hence the claims of the Appellants is not substantiated.

51) In my view therefore, AGRC has applied its mind to the claim of title raised by Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of

2025. I therefore, do not find any valid reason to pass an order of remand of the proceedings to the AGRC as sought to be suggested by Mr. Nargolkar.

52) It is contended by Mr. Nargolkar that land bearing Survey No.502/A has not been declared as a ‘slum area’ under provisions of Section 4 of the Slum Act. He has submitted that the land in occupation of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 cannot be treated as unfit for human habitation and that it does not lack ventilation or sanitation facility. He has thus suggested that the land as well as structures in occupation of those Petitioners cannot otherwise be treated as ‘slum area’ under Section 4 of the Slum Act. It is therefore contended that in absence of declaration as slum area, further declaration of land bearing Survey No.502/A as Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C(1) could not have been made. In my view, this contention is based on complete misreading of provisions of Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act. The plain language of Section 3C(1) would indicate that the CEO/SRA is empowered to issue declaration as Slum Rehabilitation Area irrespective of the fact where the land is previously declared as ‘slum area’ under Section 4 or not. Thus, the land which is not previously declared as ‘slum area’ under Section 4 can also be included in declaration under Section 3C(1) for the purpose of implementation of SRS. This principle is accepted in Division Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Tukaram Patil (supra) in which it is held in paragraphs 22, 25, 44, 45 and 46 as under:

22. While on this, it is important to note that Section 3C uses the words “whether or not previously declared as slum area, justifying its declaration as the slum rehabilitation area”. Slum areas are covered in Chapter II, but this is omitted from Chapter I-A. To understand how this works, the declaration of a slum area (as distinct from a slum rehabilitation area) is one under Section 4 and certain slum-like conditions must obtain. Section 3C(1) is far wider in its scope and is not restricted to a determination based on conditions that obtain on the ground. This is not a distinction that can be obliterated. When, therefore, there is a slum rehabilitation scheme, it is no answer at all to say that there are no slum like conditions. The slum rehabilitation scheme set out in Section 3B precedes the declaration of a slum rehabilitation area.

25. This use of the word ‘slum areas’ in Section 3A ties into the definition and also to some extent Section 4 under Chapter II. But this does not mean that the conditions specified in Section 4 will necessarily determine the formulation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. Nothing in the reading of Chapter I-A can be read to suggest this. All that the SRA is required to do is to survey and review the existing position and then to formulate and implement a slum rehabilitation scheme.

44. Mr. Jagtiani draws our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kantabai Vasant Ahir v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority[1] That also dealt with the Slum Act. There is an analysis of certain provisions of the Act and in paragraph 17 the finding of the Supreme Court was that Chapter I-A is a self-contained code and that the phrase ‘slum area’ used in Section 12(1) does not have the same meaning as in Section 2(ga). For the purposes of the slum rehabilitation schemes Chapter I-A is a self-contained code. Thus, a slum area does not necessarily always partake of the meaning under Section 4(1). This tells us that for the purposes of a slum rehabilitation scheme, while one of the considerations may well be slum-like conditions as enumerated in Section 4(1), it is not an essential requirement that those slum-like conditions must necessarily restrict a slum rehabilitation scheme under Chapter I-A.

45. Section 4 is not part of Chapter I-A. This is inter alia apparent from Section 3D, which modifies other portions of the Slum Act and is applicable to Chapter I-A. Section 12 is considerably modified. Section 11 is wholly omitted. Chapters II and III are also entirely omitted (therefore including Section 4) for the purposes of slum rehabilitation schemes.

46. Thus, from any perspective, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners. The challenge to the Section 3C declarations and notifications must fail.

53) The contention raised by Mr. Nargolkar that Notification dated 27 October 2016 is contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Slum Act therefore deserves to be rejected.                                   │
│ 54)            The Notification dated 27 October 2016 is also challenged in   │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

22. Main plank of argument of Shri Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners is that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966, Gairan land cannot be diverted or granted or leased for any other use and since in this case Gairan land has been allotted in favour of respondent No.4 – Corporation for use of construction of houses for economically weaker section, the same is illegal being violative of the prohibition contained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966. It is his further submission that exception to prohibition as carved out in sub Section (2) of Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966 will operate only with a pre-condition that Gairan land may be diverted or granted or leased for public purpose/project only if no other suitable land of the Government is available for such public purpose/project and in the instant case, there is nothing on record to establish that any other Government land was available for the construction of houses for economically weaker section under the PMAY. Thus, it is his contention that the allotment was is unlawful.

56) Thus, the Division Bench of this Court has held in Santosh Madhukar Bhondve that the State Government being the absolute owner of its own land, putting any fetter on the right of the Government to dispose of any property would be impermissible and that Government would continue to have the authority and power to dispose of its land notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Section 22A of the Code. Therefore, challenge in Writ Petition Nos.755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025 to the Notification dated 27 October 2016 was otherwise baseless and has rightly been rejected by the AGRC while dismissing the appeal.

57) The challenge to the Notification dated 27 October 2016 is otherwise belated. Though the delay in filing Appeal No.57 of 2024 was condoned by the AGRC on 27 September 2024 the effect of the delayed challenge to the said Notification cannot be ignored by this Court. The slum scheme has progressed substantially during 8 long years when Petitioners never thought of challenging the said Notification. After issuance of Notification dated 27 October 2016, following developments have taken place:

(i) Corrigendum was issued on 30 May 2018 rectifying area of land at Survey No. 83/4 (part)

(ii) After survey all slum structures, Annexure-II was prepared on 6 May 2022

(iii) LOI was issued in favour of the developer for implementation of slum scheme in respect of larger portion of the land admeasuring 41, 527.35 sq. mts.

(iv) IOD for rehab building 1 was issued on 7 June 2023.

(v) Revised LOI was issued on 21 June 2024 in respect of increased land of 48550.28 sq. mts.

(vi) Demolition of 2255 slum structures has taken place after finalisation of Annexure-II and almost all the slum structures excepting about only 64 structures have been demolished.

(vii) For demolition of balance structures, proceedings were initiated before Competent Authority on 4 July 2024 for eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.

(viii) IOD for rehab building Nos. 2 and 3 and sale building Nos.[1]

58) Implementation of the slum scheme has thus progressed substantially and therefore it would be imprudent to otherwise make any interference in the SRS at the instance of the Petitioners at this belated stage. Reliance by Mr. Khandeparkar on recent judgment of the Apex Court in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali (supra) in this regard appears to be apposite. Apex Court has held in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 as under:

17. For the present slum area, SRA had pointed out before the High Court that there were as many as 2965 slum structures which were surveyed and out of these, 2625 were found to be eligible for rehabilitation. Also, the record shows that Bharat Ekta Society is a bona fide society consisting of 261 slum dwellers and more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society have taken a considered decision that they want redevelopment of their slums, and a great deal of progress has already been made in this regard so far. The project has not only been sanctioned but has reached an advanced stage and at this stage, the appellants cannot be allowed to disturb this ongoing project as it would defeat the whole purpose of the redevelopment which is going to benefit a large number of eligible slum dwellers.

18. Only four of the present appellants were there before the High Court and rest of the appellants are fence sitters who have directly approached this Court claiming that they are also affected by the order of the High Court, even though they were never a party before the High Court. In any case, we find no merit in their case.

19. No relief can be granted to these appellants as prayed. These appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.

59) In the present case as well, the current status of slum structures on the plot as indicated by the developer is under: Sr.No. Particulars Huts

1. Total number of Huts 2319

2. Amenity Huts 6

3. Balance Huts 2313

4. Demolished Huts 2255

5. Balance Huts 64

6. Huts to be demolished but deposit collected

60) Thus, minuscule number of structure occupiers are holding up implementation of the subject SRS where 2255 structures have already been demolished. It is not that upon implementation of SRS and demolition of structures of the Petitioners, they would been rendered homeless. This Court directed conduct of survey of structures occupied by Petitioners and other similarly placed persons by order dated 15 January 2025. The SRA has conducted survey of structures of Petitioners and other similarly placed persons and has submitted report before this Court vide Affidavit dated 6 February 2025. It appears that the Tahsildar has surveyed 43 structures existing on land bearing Survey No.502/A. He has noted all the details relating to actual area in occupation of the concerned persons, documents relied upon by them and has also taken photograph at the site. This course of action was adopted by this Court with a view to ensure that record of structures of Petitioners and other similarly placed persons is maintained for the purpose of deciding their eligibility for allotment of rehab tenements towards implementation of the subject SRS. It appears that majority of the structure occupiers would be considered eligible on the basis of documents produced by them. They would accordingly become entitled to be allotted rehab tenements.

61) The case thus presents a unique conundrum where implementation of slum scheme of a very large magnitude is held up on account of claims raised by the Petitioners. When almost the entire plot of land is cleared of thousands of slum structures, the SRS cannot be held up till Petitioners establish their alleged claim of title/ownership in the land. Their conduct in not questioning notification of land as Slum Rehabilitation Area immediately after 27 October 2016 assumes importance. It is only when the Scheme started taking shape by appointment of a developer that Petitioners thought of opposing the same by creating hurdles in implementation of SRS.

62) In absence of any document evidencing allotment of land by names of Petitioners and in the light of the revenue authorities repeatedly certifying that no portion of land in Survey No. 502/A has been allotted to any of the Petitioners, this Court is unable to recognize any special status for them than that of mere occupiers of structures constructed on Government land. The SRA has decided to clear the slum by ensuring better living conditions for thousands of slum dwellers, who are awaiting allotment of rehab tenements to them on ownership basis. Petitioners, who are eligible, would also be provided with such rehab tenements. In fact there are multiple structures on plots of land claimed by Petitioners. Many structures are occupied by their relatives. This is clear from the chart produced by the Developer alongwith its reply. To illustrate, the land admeasuring 195 var is not occupied by Petitioner- Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal alone. As per the Chart filed by the Developer along with its Affidavit-in-Reply, there are as many as 13 structures/huts occupied by different persons, on the said land as under: Sr. No. Gav namuna Entry No. Name Area Hut Nos. Current Hut Owners Area Status 11 166 (Mr. Laxman Bandu Dhamale) Mr. Laxman Bendu 195 war SDK_S04_ 009/0050 Dinesh Chandrakant WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0051 Megha consenting existing structure SDK_S04_ 009/0052 Varsha existing structure SDK_S04_ 009/0053 Sunil WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0054 Vanita Jayendra WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0055 Happy Raghunath WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0056 Mahendra existing structure SDK_S04_ 009/0057 Asha Ashok Basankar Consented to scheme and demolished SDK_S04_ 009/0058 Laxman WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0059 Laxman WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0060 Yogesh Consented to scheme and demolished SDK_S04_ 009/0061 Sarita WP/ 18995/24 pending SDK_S04_ 009/0062 Swapna Ravindra Dhanawade WP/ 18995/24 pending If the occupiers of 13 structures located on land claimed by Petitioner- Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal are found eligible, they would receive 13 flats. Out of those 13 occupiers of structures, 11 are members of Bhuyal family. Out of the 13 structure occupiers, two have consented to implementation of SRS and 11 are opposing the same. Similar is the position in respect of most of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 615/2025, who would receive multiple flats in rehabilitation buildings against several structures standing on the land in which they claim rights. Thus implementation of slum scheme would result in rehabilitation of tribals who would receive flats on ownership basis. On the other hand any further delay in implementation of the Scheme would put the whole scheme in serious jeopardy.

63) Thus the real contest here is not about any of the Petitioners being rendered homeless on account of implementation of slum scheme. Subject to satisfaction of their eligibility, the Developer is bound to allot them rehab tenements in addition to payment of rent from the date of demolition of their structures. What Petitioners expect is actually a larger pie in implementation of the SRS. Their real objection is not to prevent redevelopment of the land, which is already infested with thousands of hutments, but what they are actually expecting is grant of additional benefit as compared to other normal slum dwellers. Petitioners are expecting that they should be granted a special treatment during the course of implementation of slum scheme by being treated differently than the other normal slum dwellers. However, no special treatment can be granted to them on account of failure to prove ownership of part of land bearing Survey No.502/A. If the Petitioners of Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 615 of 2025 were really the owners of any portion of land bearing Survey No.502/A why they permitted mushrooming of thousands of slums in the said land has not been explained in any manner. AGRC has also recorded finding that those Petitioners did not take any steps for removal of encroachment in the land in which they claim ownership. There prayer before AGRC was to carve out entire land admeasuring 3.39 Hectare in Survey No.502/A. However, how Petitioners tolerated mushrooming of 1848 slum structures on the said land and did not take any steps for removal of encroachment has not been explained. It appears that only one Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal made unsuccessful attempt of seeking recovery of possession of land and structure by filing civil suit, which came to be dismissed holding that he could not prove ownership of the land. Said decree has attained finality. Except him, no other Petitioner in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 has taken any step in removal of any slum structure. It is only after slum structures are taken up for rehabilitation, Petitioner now want award of different treatment for the purpose of grant of additional benefits through implementation of slum scheme, which is the real intention behind initiation of present litigation. This Court cannot put implementation of slum scheme of such massive magnitude to risk only because Petitioners want to fulfill their desire of getting larger pie than other slum dwellers from the Developer.

64) I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the AGRC on 12 March 2025 rejecting the Appeal No.57 of 2024 as well as order dated 4 December 2024 passed in various appeals arising out of orders passed by Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. The Developer is willing to offer all the benefits arising out of implementation of slum scheme to the eligible Petitioners. Immediately upon vacation of their structures, they would be entitled to payment of transit rent. They would be allotted rehab tenement by the Developer on ownership basis. Their unauthorised structures will get converted into ownership tenements. I therefore do not see any error on the part of the AGRC in upholding eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.

65) The Petitions are thus devoid of merits. All the Petitions are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. In view of disposal of Writ Petition No. 18995 of 2024, nothing would survive in Interim Application No. 1146 of 2025 and the same also accordingly stands disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

66) After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Nargolkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would seek stay on dispossession and demolition of structures of the Petitioners for a period of four weeks. The request is strenuously opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents contending that the entire project is held up on account of non-cooperation by minuscule number of structure occupiers, when about 2255 structures have already been demolished. However, Mr. Naik, the learned senior advocate appearing for the Developer fairly makes a statement that no steps shall be taken for a period of two weeks for moving proceedings before the SRA for implementation of order of eviction passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act qua Petitioners. Statement is recorded. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)