Bombay High Court
Abc Amalgamated Building Corpn. Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And 5 Ors on 31 January, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
909-OSWP-1510-2012.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2012
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 3363 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2012
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 24738 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2012
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 5 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1510 OF 2012
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL ABC Amalgamated Building Corporation & Anr ...Petitioners
Digitally signed
Versus
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Date: 2024.01.31
18:09:11 +0530
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 140 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 3160 OF 2024
IN
Page 1 of 8
31st January 2024
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 :::
909-OSWP-1510-2012.DOC
WRIT PETITION NO. 140 OF 2017
Ibrahim Dawoodbhai Jather ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Ms Gulnar Mistry, with Nitesh Aacharya, i/b Moin Khan, for the
Petitioner.
Mr Karl Tamboly, with Aseem Naphade, Chirag Sarawagi & Riya
Thakkar, i/b Tushar Goradia, for the Petitioners in
WP/1510/2012 & IAL/24738/2023.
Mr SB Gore, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/1510/2012.
Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Respondent-State in
WP/140/2017.
Mr Anoop Patil, for Respondent No.2-SRA in WP/140/2017.
Mr Vivek Shukla, i/b Priyanka M, for Respondents Nos. 7 to 26.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 31st January 2024 PC:-
1. There is at village Pahadi in Goregaon, Malad (East), Tal Borivali, a large tract of land that is under slum redevelopment. A portion of it, CTS Nos. 23A/246 to 258 is occupied by what are called stables.
2. This is only a description of the built form. What is being argued before us by the individuals affected is that these are actually used as stables for buffaloes, cattle etc. Page 2 of 8 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 ::: 909-OSWP-1510-2012.DOC
3. The individuals stable holders claim that they are tenants of the original imla maliks and they have been at this site for a long time. They raise one preliminary issue that the lands on which their stables stand (and we have ascertained this with some difficulty as being CTS Nos. 23A/246 to 258) are not part of the slum scheme being taken up by the developer, ABC Amalgamated Building Corporation ("ABC Corporation"). According to Mr Tamboly for the ABC Corporation, this argument has been negatived in several previous orders. He maintains that these CTS numbers are part of the slum scheme. There is a constant back and forth about the documentation in regard to this. There is not an acceptable state of affairs for a Writ Court.
4. The second aspect is that according to Mr Tamboly for the developers, these stables are treated as commercial structures and, since they are part of the slum scheme, if and when found eligible will be entitled to rehabilitation in the rehab buildings for commercial premises. This is what trouble us. If the stables are actually being used as such, as stables, we cannot see how it is conceivably possible to push these people and their animals into a commercial space that would ordinarily be meant for an office, a grocery shop etc. This is a complex problem. It is a human displacement problem. It is an urban planning problem. And it is not a new problem. For the last several decades, civil planning has required the movement northward and ultimately beyond municipal limits of various animal holding commercial enterprises such as panjrapols, cattle sheds, stables, etc. There is a zoning issue involved in this as well. The slum rehabilitation Authority ("SRA") as a special planning authority may not be concerned with wider Page 3 of 8 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 ::: 909-OSWP-1510-2012.DOC civil planning but the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") undoubtedly is and so is the State of Maharashtra. We are not questioning the policy for relocation of stables. What we are questioning is whether in the guise of slum redevelopment active and operation stables with animals can simply be rolled over by the juggernaut of slum redevelopment and people can be told that it does not matter what happens to their animals, but they must take up some commercial space. That seems to us inequitable, unthinkable and hardly credible as a statutory objective.
5. But before we pass any orders in that regard, we believe it is necessary to clearly identify the factual scenario in three respects. We proceed to specify these and we do so to remove all ambiguity going forward:
(a) The SRA is first required to inform us whether according to its records these CTS Nos. 23A/246 to 258 are or are not part of the slum rehabilitation scheme. In that regard, the SRA will need to demonstrate that there included in an LoI or a revised LoI. We will not proceed on the basis of assumption that there was an application for a revised LoI but there is no record before us that shows that the revision was granted. We will go by the SRA record in this regard.
(b) Secondly, the SRA must after a site inspection inform us whether these are actually being used as stables. We will need photographs. We say this because in at least Page 4 of 8 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 ::: 909-OSWP-1510-2012.DOC one previous matter, a substantially similar claim was made, citing before us repeatedly that there were stables. When we ordered a site inspection, it was found that there was nothing there but an entirely illicit country liquor distillery running in what was once upon a time a stable. We say this because under no circumstance we will permit someone to get undue advantage of a Court order or of a statutory policy.
(c) If there are actually active stables, i.e., with animals, then the SRA must inform us after consulting with the MCGM what proposal is to be made for relocating these persons and their animals. We are rejecting straight-away the idea that it is for the developer to identify land and to move the stables there. It will be for the public authorities to identify the zone or the place where land is available. We are not suggesting that the developer will not be financially liable for this. To that extent we may accept the SRA suggestion that it is for the developer to make the necessary financial arrangements and to secure rights to the land in an appropriate zone that complies with planning and zoning requirements. But we cannot expect the developer to go about the process of town and country planning or of zoning. That would be entirely unlawful.
6. Mr Tamboly tenders two sketches of the area in question. For future reference, and so that these are not lost, we are annexing Page 5 of 8 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 ::: 909-OSWP-1510-2012.DOC scans of both to this order. They show us what is the area occupied by the stables and what is the proposal in the slum rehabilitation project.
7. We find that in at least in one Interim Application yet on a lodging number, there are several documents that are totally illegible, such as the one at page 62 and the one at pages 65 and 66. These are quite cleverly photocopied as black on black, making any attempt to read them an impossible task. If these objections are not removed by the next date and the Interim Application has not finally numbered, we will reject it straight-away on that ground alone.
8. List all these matters subject to numbering and removal of office objections, high on board on 23rd February 2024.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 6 of 8 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 ::: Page 7 of 8 ________________ 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 ::: Page 8 of 8 ________________ 31st January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2024 04:20:36 :::