Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned counsel placed reliance on section 95A(1) of the said Act in support of his submission that the Executive Engineer has not recorded any finding contemplated under section 95A(1) that the respondent no.3 had complied with all the conditions before invoking the provisions of section 95A(2). He submits that the entire action thus initiated by the Executive Engineer was thus illegal and without jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on section 95A(2) in support of his submission that such action could be initiated only by the Board as defined under section 2(6) which is established under section 18 of the said Act. He also invited my attention to section 18 of the said Act and would submit that insofar as city of Mumbai is concerned, Mumbai Housing Area Development Board is the Board established for the This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/06/2019 kvm 14-WPL1554.19 purposes of carrying out the provisions of the said Act.

16. Insofar as the submission of Mr.Narula, learned counsel for the petitioners that in regulation 33(9) of the Development Control Regulation, no powers which can be exercised under section 95A of the MHADA Act are not contemplated is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that under section 95A of the Act, vide powers in the Board of summary eviction of the occupants in certain cases. These powers are independent powers given to the authority to evict the occupiers in the event of conditions under section 95A(1) having been satisfied and any such occupants refusing to vacate the premises in their occupation.

21. Mr.Narula, learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder would submit that no proof of service is produced by the authority even before this court. No finding has been recorded by the Executive Engineer as contemplated under section 95A(1) of the MHADA Act.

22. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the Executive Engineer has recorded finding in the second paragraph on page 39 of the petition in the impugned order that all conditions initiating actions under section 95A of the MHADA Act against the tenants are fulfilled by the respondent no.3. There is thus no substance in the submission of Mr.Narula, learned counsel for the petitioners that no such finding contemplated under section 95A(i) is recorded by the Executive Engineer.

27. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not offered permanent alternate accommodation and this issue ought to have been decided by the Executive Engineer before passing an order of eviction is concerned, the Division Bench of this court has already decided this issue in case of Radhika George and others (supra). This court has clearly held that the object of the legislature by introducing the amendments was to give an opportunity to the occupants of old structures who were unable to develop themselves due to lack of resources to move to better accommodation and at the same time create additional housing for general consumption. It is also held that once the authority under section 95A finds that these requirements are fulfilled, all that it does is to direct the members to shift to the transit accommodation awaiting reconstruction. It is held that action under section 95A does not result in determining rights of the parties per-se. The authority under section 95A does not finally determine or terminate any ownership rights of the members of such societies. The said rights, if any, has to be determined by the court of law. Admittedly in this case, the petitioners have entered into agreement with the respondent no.3. Whether the petitioners are offered permanent alternate accommodation properly or not can be adjudicated in the appropriate proceedings in case of any such breach if committed by the respondent no.3. This court has already recorded the undertaking rendered by the respondent no.3 which are rendered in the affidavit in reply filed before this court. In my view, such issue of no suitable permanent alternate accommodation This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 18/06/2019 kvm 14-WPL1554.19 cannot be decided in the proceedings under section 95A of the said Act. Scope of interference with the order under section 95A of the said Act is very limited. The petitioners cannot be allowed to stall the project.