Full Text
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 493 OF 2017
1. A.H Wadia Trust }
A Public Charitable Trust, } registered under the }
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, }
1950 under Registration No. }
PTR No. E-470 (Bom) having its } office at 70, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, }
Mumbai – 400 023 }
2. Jehangir Adi Wadia }
3. Muncherji Nusserwanji Muncherji}
Cama }
4. Adil Jehangir Wadia }
5. Sheroo Jehangir Wadia }
Petitioner No.2 to 5, all Adults } all of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, } being the present Trustees of the }
Petitioner No.1 A.H. Wadia Trust } having their office at 70, Dr.V. B. }
Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400 23 }….Petitioners
Department, Madam Cama Road, }
Hutatma Raj Guru Chowk, }
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 }
2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority }
3. CEO of Slum Rehabilitation }
Authority }
4. Addl. Collector (Enc/Rem.) }
Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai }
5. Deputy Collector ((Enc./Rem.) }
Kurla, having their office at }
Topiwala College, S.N. Road, }
Maa Vindyavasini Cooperative }
Housing Society (Prop) Gulam }
Mohammed Ansari & G.P. }
Yadav Chawl, Kallu Paw-walla }
Stabe, Kurla- West, Mumbai-70 }
7. M/s. K.K. Constructions }
Having their office at 52,Angel }
View, Chapel Road, }
Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050}...Respondents
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Chaitanya Chavan a/w Mr. Sameer Panwalkar i/by M/s. LR & Associates for Petitione, for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP, State for Respondent Nos.1 and 4
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad(Reddy) for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3-
SRA.
JUDGMENT
1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioners have prayed for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Notices dated 27th December, 2012, 24th July,2013 and 31st May, 2014 and also the Impugned Notification dated 31st October, 2015 published in the Official Gazette under Section 14(1) r/w. Section 3D(c)(i)(A) of Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 issued by the Respondents. The Petitioners have also prayed for various other reliefs.
2. On 25th September, 1979, Respondent No.5 published a Notification declaring the property of the Petitioners described in paragraph 1 of the Petition as ‘Slum Area’ under Section 4 of the of Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short ‘Slums Act’). The parties entered into various correspondence from time to time. On 27th December, 2012, the Petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the steps for improvement of works on the suit property should not be taken by invoking jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Slums Act.
3. On 29th January, 2013, Respondent No.5 submitted a report in the office of Respondent No.4 thereby recommending acquisition of the suit property. The said notice was replied by the Petitioners on 30th January, 2013. February, 2013, Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 to take action under Section 3D (c) (i) of Chapter IA r/w. Section 14 of the Slum Act for acquisition of the writ property. Respondent No.5 thereafter, submitted its revised report to Respondent No.4, inter alia, recommending acquisition of the writ property on 4th April, 2013. On 27th June, 2013, Respondent No.2 issued a Public Notice under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act. On 24th July, 2013, Respondent No.2 issued a notice, calling upon the Petitioners to remain present on 16th August, 2013 for the hearing on their objections with respect to the proposed acquisition of the writ property. The Petitioners filed their detailed reply in response to the Notice on 23rd September, 2013 on various grounds.
4. On 11th October, 2013, Respondent No.3 granted hearing on the said notice dated 24th July, 2013 and the matter was closed for passing orders. On 21st May, 2014, Respondent No.3 submitted a Report to Respondent No.1 whereby he recommended acquisition of the writ property. August, 2015, Respondent No.1 published a Notification dated 28th August, 2014 in the Official Gazette declaring and notifying the writ property as Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C of the Slums Act. On 2nd November, 2015, Respondent No.1 published a Notification, declaring that the writ property was acquired under Section 14(1) read with Section 3D(i) (A) of the Slum Act.
5. On 31st May, 2016, Respondent No.2 issued a Notice to the Petitioners thereby calling upon the Petitioners to remain present for hearing to be held on 2nd June, 2016 for determining compensation for acquisition of the writ property. On 23rd June, 2016, Petitioners addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 demanding a copy of the impugned Notification. On 27th October, 2016, Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 issued a Notice thereby deciding compensation and further calling upon the Petitoners to remain present on 7th November, 2016 for hearing on the objections of the Petitioners regarding compensation. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 28th October, 2016, the Petitioners obtained a copy of the impugned Notification along with other necessary documents from the Office of Respodnent No.3 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Some time in the month of January, 2017, the Petitioners filed this Petition and raised various grievances in the Petition.
6. At the threshhold, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.[1] and 4- State and Mr. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3417 of 2019 in A.H.Wadia Trust and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of above case and the said Writ Petition No. 1347/2019 was filed by the Petitioners herein itself.
7. It is submitted that admittedly, in this case also the Petitioners have relied upon the Will of their ancesters and on receipt of which, the Originating Summons filed by the Petitioners for clarification and interpretation of the said Will and for obtaining permission in respect of the construction / redevelopment of the writ property, is still pending and as a result thereof, the Petitioners could not make any statement before the Slum Authorities whether they could develop or execute the work of redevelopment in slum area or building development in the slum area.
8. This Court, in the said judgment dated 9th January, 2023 dealt with the identical facts and after adverting to various judgments of this Court, held that there is no straight jacket formula applicable while following the principles of natural justice. The Court has to consider whether the owner had bonafide interest to develop the property so as to benefit the slub dwellers or the owner was merely trying to creat hurdles in achieving the ultimate object of rehabilitation of slum dwellers. If it is found that the owner was given opportunity to develop the property and was incapable of doing so or did not have any bonafide interest, then Writ Court will not stall the process of rehabilitation of slum dwellers at the behest of such owner. This Court accordingly held that there is no straight jacket formula applicable while following the principles of natural justice. The Court has to consider whether the party who has alleged the violation of principles of natural justice was at all affected or any prejudice is caused to him.
9. Mr. Damle, learned Senior Cousnel for the Petitioners fairly made a statement before this Court on 25th January, 2023 that the case of the present Petitioners is already covered by the judgment and order delivered by this Court on 9th January, 2023 in Writ Pettion No. 1347 of 2019 in the Case of A.H.Wadia Trust and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.(supra). This Court accordingly accepted the statement of the learned Senior Counsel and dismissed the said Petition for the reasons to be recorded separately.
10. This Court has come to the conclusion that the facts in this Writ petition and the issues involved herein, are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court delivered on 9th January, 2023 in case of A.H.Wadia Trust and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra). Even otherwise, the Petitioners are not in the position to distinguish the said judgment delivered by this Court.
11. We accordingly, pass the following order: ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No. 493 of 2017 is dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to the costs.