Adarsh Estte Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Masryadit (Proposed) Promoter Mr. Krishan D. vs State of Maharashtra and Others

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6070 OF 2014

ADARSH ESTATE SAHAKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT (PROPOSED) .... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6204 OF 2014

O R D E R

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Both these Special Leave Petitions are

challenging the judgment and Order dated 20 th January,

2014 passed by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court of

Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2009

along with Notice of Motion No. 205 of 2011 and Writ

Petition No. 1596 of 2009 along with Notice of Motion No.

206 of 2011.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present special Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD leave petitions are as under.

Date: 2019.08.09 16:19:34 IST Reason: 2

The petitioner in SLP (C) No. 6070 of 2014 is a

society (hereinafter referred to as “Adarsh”) of slum

dwellers of plot bearing CTS No. 601, having a total area

admeasuring 704.30 sq. mts. The petitioner in SLP (C) No.

6204 of 2014 is a society (hereinafter referred to as

“Saidham”) of slum dwellers of plots bearing CTS Nos.

595, 596 and 602 having a total area admeasuring 2247.20

sq. mts. The respondent no. 5 in both the special leave

petitions, namely, Maruti Nagar Co-operative Housing

Society, is also a society of slum dwellers (hereinafter

referred to as “Maruti”) situated on plots bearing CTS

Nos. 585, 604 and 605, having a total area admeasuring

6627.50 sq. mts. The said plots on which the aforesaid

three slums are situated are owned by the Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Respondent no. 4 in both

the special leave petitions (hereinafter referred to as

“the Corporation”). The General Body of Maruti

(Respondent no. 5 herein) had passed a resolution

regarding implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme

and appointed a developer. Thereafter, on 06th September,

2005, Maruti submitted a proposal for a Scheme of

rehabilitation of slum dwellers. In furtherance of the

proposal submitted by it, respondent Nos. 3 and 4

initiated proceedings for verifying Annexure-II, i.e.

list of eligible and non-eligible slum dwellers. On 3

8th March, 2006, the Corporation forwarded Annexure-II to

Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as

the “SRA”). However, it appears that, thereafter, several

complaints were received regarding frauds being committed

in the preparation of Annexure-II. The SRA passed an

order on 20th December, 2006 observing therein, that

Annexure-II was issued on account of bogus and fraudulent

documents filed by Maruti. The Corporation, therefore,

cancelled Annexure-II.

3. In the meantime, both the petitioners, Adarsh as

well as Saidham, had submitted Slum Rehabilitation

proposals, in respect of slum dwellers on the plots

mentioned hereinabove along with the consent of the slum

dwellers and a General Body resolution. The SRA after

considering the proposal of the petitioners, directed

acceptance of the scrutiny fee, which is duly paid by

both of them. On 11th July, 2008 the Assistant Municipal

Commissioner addressed a communication to the SRA stating

therein, that after calling required documents from

Maruti they would scrutinize and process a revised

Annexure-II on merits. In response to the said

communication, the SRA informed the Corporation about the

letter of the Corporation dated 16 th September, 2006 by

which they had informed that Annexure-II issued to Maruti 4

stood cancelled on account of fraud. On 29 th July, 2008

the SRA addressed a letter requesting the Corporation to

scrutinize the draft Annexure-II submitted by the

Petitioners. On 6th October 2008, SRA informed the

Corporation that the proposal of the Petitioners for

issuance of Annexure-II be held to be treated as

acceptable. It was also informed that since the proposal

of Maruti had already been rejected, the question of

issuing any Annexure-II in its favour did not arise.

4. In November, 2008, Maruti filed two separate

applications to the High Power Committee against the

Petitioners, requesting that the SRA should not sanction

the proposal submitted by the Petitioners and that its

proposal should be reconsidered. Vide Order dated 7th

February, 2009 the High Power Committee set aside the

Order passed by the SRA dated 30 th December, 2006, by

which the SRA had rejected the proposal of Maruti.

5. The orders passed by the SRA were assailed before

the Bombay High court in Writ Petition Nos. 1595 of 2009

and 1596 of 2009 filed by Adarsh and Saidham

respectively. Vide Order dated 11th January, 2010 Rule

was granted in those petitions. Liberty was also granted

to the petitioners to apply for relief in case of any

adverse action. In the meantime, the Corporation had 5

published a draft Annexure-II in favour of Maruti.

Accordingly on 7th May, 2011 the SRA fixed a hearing on

23rd May, 2011 for cancellation of the proposal of

Petitioners. The Petitioners, therefore, moved Notices of

Motion before the High Court. By an Order dated 20th May,

2011 the High Court granted interim relief to the

Petitioners thereby, staying the hearing fixed before

C.E.O., SRA. Vide subsequent Orders dated 08 th November,

2011 and 22nd November, 2011, the High Court permitted

the SRA to proceed with the hearing and further directed

that the decision, if any, which would be taken shall not

be implemented, till further Orders are passed by the

High Court. Vide Order dated 5th March, 2012 the SRA

rejected the proposals of the Petitioners and directed

that the proposal of Maruti be processed further on the

basis of revised Annexure-II, to be issued by the

Corporation. Finally, by an Order dated 20th January,

2014 both the Writ Petitions were rejected by the High

Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these

Special Leave Petitions.

6. During the pendency of hearing, the SRA as well

as Maruti had filed Affidavit stating therein, that each

of the seven plots are capable in law of independent

schemes. This court, therefore, directed the SRA by an 6

Order dated 16th February, 2018, to submit a draft

proposal for settlement, in terms of its affidavit and

submit the same for approval by other parties. In

accordance with the Order passed by this court, the SRA

has circulated a draft terms of settlement proposing

therein, that the Corporation should issue independent

Annexure-II to all the three societies, i.e. Adarsh,

Saidham and Maruti for their respective independent

plots. It is further proposed that Adarsh and Saidham,

the petitioners herein, shall either jointly develop

their properties or develop their properties

independently. It is further proposed that, in the event

Adarsh was to develop the property separately, since it

was not having a direct access, it should be provided an

access by a road having a width of 9 meters. It was

further proposed that Maruti should develop its property

independently. Accordingly I.A. No. 97692/2018 came to be

filed by the SRA. An affidavit dated 21st July, 2018 which

came to be filed on 25th July, 2018 by Maruti stating

therein, that it has taken a conscious decision, to

accept the terms of settlement submitted by the SRA so

that all the three proposals can independently be

developed by the respective societies. Similar affidavit

came to be filed by both the Petitioners, accepting the

terms of settlement as proposed by the SRA. The 7

Respondent-Corporation has also filed an affidavit dated

28th August, 2018 that it has no objection for accepting

the terms of settlement as proposed by the SRA.

7. Ordinarily the matter should have ended here.

However, Maruti filed I.A. No. 11905 of 2019 thereby,

praying for permitting it to withdraw its Additional

Affidavit dated 21st July, 2018 i.e. giving consent to

the settlement. Immediately after filing the I.A., 214

slum dwellers of Maruti (Respondent No. 5 herein) had

addressed a letter dated 29th January, 2019 to the

Registry of this Court stating therein, that they had

never opposed the terms of settlement proposed by the SRA

and expressly recorded their consent. Since it was

contested before this court by the Petitioners that

letter dated 11th October, 2018 purported to withdraw the

consent, originally contained only six names and the

other names, which have been added to that letter are by

simply plucking them from the letter dated 30 th May,

2018, this court appointed Shri Ashish Wad, Advocate, who

was appearing for the Municipal Corporation, to act as a

Local Commissioner.

8. The Local Commissioner has submitted his report

on 9th July, 2019. A perusal of the report would

categorically show, that letter dated 11th October 2018 8

was not signed by 172 slum dwellers but only by 6

persons.

9. Taking into consideration all these aspects of

the matter, it is clear that letter dated 11 th October,

2018 thereby seeking to withdraw the consent which was

already given to the terms of settlement is a fabricated

document, containing only six signatures and rest of the

names have been plucked out from the letter dated 30 th

May, 2018. Apart from that, we also find that on account

of litigation between the three societies the development

of the project is lingering from 2005 and no progress has

taken place for a period of more than 14 years. The slum

dwellers residing in the slums have been deprived of

shifting to a decent accommodation. We further find, that

if all the 3 societies are permitted to be developed

independently, no prejudice would be caused to any of

slum dwellers. On the contrary, in our considered view,

the settlement arrived at between the parties, and which

was already accepted by all the stakeholders, is fair and

reasonable and in interest of the slum dwellers of all

the three societies.

10. In that view of the matter I.A No. 11905/2019 is

rejected.

9

11. I.A. No. 97692/2018 is allowed. The Special Leave

Petitions are disposed of in terms of settlement dated

16th April, 2018 marked as Annexure-II to I.A. No.

97692/2018.

12. The parties to bear their own costs.

...................J. [S.A. BOBDE]

...................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

...................J. [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 8, 2019.