Shankar Hiranna Rajanna vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9877 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11675 OF 2016]

SHANKAR HIRANNA RAJANNA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9878 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11678 OF 2016]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9879 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25312 OF 2016]

J U D G M E N T

NARIMAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have come to us after a chequered

history, which has begun at least four decades ago.

Initially, a certain building, which would be referred

to as 102 D of property, admeasuring 2807 sq. meters

belonging to MHADA was said to be dilapidated and in

dangerous condition beyond economic repair. A notice

to this effect had been issued by MHADA dated

23.03.1982. Subsequently, buildings 102 A, B and C Signature Not Verified

were also declared as being beyond economic repair Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2016.10.04 12:28:42 IST Reason:

under Section 88 of the MHADA Act in the year 1989.

Acquisition of the said four buildings took place under 2 Section 93 of the said Act on 23.08.1990 and physical

possession of the land was taken by the Board on

11.12.1990. This acquisition was challenged in a writ

petition filed before the High Court. The High Court,

by a Judgment dated 04.08.1994, dismissed the said writ

petition, as a result of which, the proceedings for

acquisition came to a finality.

3. Sometime after 1989, we have been informed that

buildings 102 D and 102 B and C have since been

demolished and all the persons residing therein are in

transit camps that have been provided for by MHADA.

Building 102 A continues and the tenants continue to

live therein. Various proceedings took place, which it

is not necessary for us to go into in view of the fact

that by an order dated 10.05.2002 in SLP (C) No. 6991

of 2002, this Court directed MHADA to take a decision

on the appellants' proposal - i.e. proposal submitted

by tenants, uninfluenced by the decision of the High

Court, which was impugned in that case, and to bring

the decision to the notice of the Court.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a meeting was

held on 02.08.2004, by which, under the auspices of the

Chief Minister, it was decided that the entire land

under the four buildings aforestated would be returned

to the developers i.e. M/s Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 3

(in short, "M/s Raj Doshi") for carrying out the

development project under Regulations 33(7) and 33(9).

Permission for the same had to be accorded by MHADA

under the aforesaid Regulations. All expenses required

to be incurred by MHADA were to be recovered from the

developers. The most important thing in the said

decision was that the consent letter of 70% of the

occupants should be given to the said builder and it

ought to be confirmed that at least 70% have so done.

Rehabilitation of the occupants was to be in a minimum

built up area of 30.65 Sq. meters. Armed with this

proposal, the tenants and the developers came back to

this Court and this Court, by an order dated

18.04.2005, had the entire matter sent back to the High

Court. On the belief that the necessary NOC/clearance

would be given by MHADA within a reasonable time, M/s

Raj Doshi withdrew their writ petition on 07.07.2005.

5. Unfortunately, this did not end the matter, which

had been hanging fire for a long time. No

NOC/clearance was forthcoming from MHADA in the light

of the decision taken dated 02.08.2004. This being the

case, the tenants again approached the High Court in

Writ Petition (C) No. 2545 of 2006. It took 10 years

for this writ petition, in turn, to be disposed of by

the High Court by the impugned Judgment dated

20.01.2016. In a nutshell, after reciting the 4

chequered history of this case, the High Court

ultimately disposed of the writ petition by asking both

M/s Raj Doshi and another developer, who had entered

the fray in 2010, namely, M/s Matoshree Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. to prove that either one of them had the

requisite 70% consent of the occupants of these

structures, as required by Regulation 33(7). It was

further directed that MHADA was to undertake this

exercise and if it was found that neither of the

developers had the requisite 70% consent, MHADA would

then undertake the construction itself. With these

directions, the matter was listed again on 29.04.2016.

6. In the meanwhile, in compliance with the directions

contained in the impugned Judgment, an exercise was

carried out on 05.04.2016, by which MHADA came back to

the Court stating that neither of the developers had

the requisite 70% consent. It is at this stage that

various Special Leave Petitions have been filed and

which are the subject matter for decision before us.

7. This Court, in order to ascertain whether the

original developer, namely, M/s Raj Doshi had the

requisite 70% consent, ordered that, without prejudice

to the contentions available to all the parties, the

matter, being an old one, the Chief Officer of the

MBRRB was to call a meeting of the tenants/occupants to 5

ascertain whether M/s Raj Doshi had the requisite 70%

consent from the tenants/occupants. This was to be

done within a period of four weeks. The matter then

came up before us on 05.08.2016, 08.08.2016 and

29.09.2016 and thereafter, has come up before us today.

We have been given a copy of the report that was asked

for by our order dated 12.07.2016.

8. By the report dated 03.09.2016, the Chief Officer

of the MBRRB has since ascertained that M/s Raj Doshi

commands 78.89% of the consent of eligible

tenants/occupants.

9. Regard being had to the fact that even the impugned

Judgment directed that it must first be ascertained

whether either private developer had the requisite 70%

consent, and regard being had to the fact that the

terms offered to the tenants in terms of the carpet

area of the tenement offered to them are more

favourable - M/s Raj Doshi offering 400 Sq. ft. as

against MHADA which offers a little above 300 Sq. ft.,

we are of the view that this litigation should be put

an end to.

10. We have also noticed that M/s Matoshree

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the other developer, who

has come into the fray only in the year 2010, has 6

offered a higher area of 425 sq. ft. In addition, it

has also offered a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand) per month to be paid to each

tenant/occupant so that they can be accommodated in

transit camps or otherwise, until the requisite

structures are put up by the developer. On a query

made by the Court to M/s Raj Doshi, we were informed

that they would match these figures, i.e. they would

give each tenant/occupant 425 sq. ft. carpet area.

Also, Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per

month to each tenant/occupant of the one building which

remains, would be given after which the said building

would have to be demolished in order that the

construction/development under Regulations 33(7) and

33(9) takes place. We, therefore, direct the

tenants/occupants to vacate the said building within a

period of eight weeks from today. We also direct MHADA

and all Government and Municipal Authorities to give

the necessary NOC/clearances within the same period

i.e. eight weeks in accordance with law. We have been

assured by M/s. Raj Doshi that on and from the expiry

of these eight weeks, development will take place

within a period of 42 months thereafter. We record

this undertaking from the developer.

11. We hasten to add that the development spoken of

means that not only the construction will be completed, 7

but would be ready for occupation within the aforesaid

period.

12. Given the peculiar facts of this case, we make it

clear that the order made by us today will not in any

manner hinder MHADA from carrying out its statutory

obligations and other duties in other cases.

13. Mr. M.L. Varma, learned senior counsel appearing

for MHADA, has expressed an apprehension that all the

dues statutorily payable by the developer to MHADA, as

per the policy and rules, must be paid in due course by

the developer. On a query made by the Court,

Mr.Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of M/s Raj Doshi, has assured us that the same

will be done.

14. With the aforesaid directions, these appeals are

disposed of.

No costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;

September 29, 2016.

8

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11675/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/01/2016 in WP No. 2545/2006 21/01/2016 in WP No. 2545/2016 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)

SHANKAR HIRANNA RAJANNA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s)

(with application for permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 11678/2016 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for deletion of parties in the array of parties and Interim Relief and Office Report)

SLP(C) No. 25312/2016 (with Office Report)

Date : 29/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. J. Reis, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv.

Mr. Yadunath Chaudhry, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv.

Mr. Sagar Mehra, Adv.

Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Harin P. Rawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anish R. Shah, Adv.

Mr. Anando Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv.

Ms. Divya Anand, Adv.

9

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Attorney General Mr. M. L. Varma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.

Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv.

Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv.

Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.

Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.

Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.

Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv.

Mr. Rajendra D. Anbhule, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Assistant Registrar

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)