Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

WP-704-20 & WP-707-20.DOC

22) Mr. Gaurav Joshi, the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 4, submitted that the petitioners have made an endeavour to expand the scope of the Petitions infinitely. Mr. Joshi submitted that the impugned order under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976 has been challenged on the grounds of non-application of mind, want of efficacious opportunity of hearing and alleged high-handed action on the part of the authorities. The scope of this petition, according to Mr. Joshi, is thus restricted to test the legality and validity of the order under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976. It would be impermissible to delve into the aspect of the condition of the subject building and the legality of the acquisition proceedings, which are subject matters of independent petitions instituted by the petitioners.

25) Adverting to the provisions contained in Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976, Mr. Joshi submitted that the scope of inquiry in a challenge to an order passed under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976 is extremely limited. In the case at hand, according to Mr. Joshi, all the three pre-requisites to invoke Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976 have been fulfilled. By a catena of judgments, it has been held that once the three ingredients contained in Section 95A of the MHAD Act, 1976 are fulfilled, the Notice and order issued in exercise of the power under Section 95A of the MHAD Act, 1976 cannot be called in question.

"Modified Condition No.4 : The irrevocable written consents by not less an 70% of all eligible tenants / occupants included in Urban Renewal Scheme or as provided in MHADA Act, 1976 shall be submitted."

40) In the backdrop of the aforesaid regulatory framework under which Respondent No.4 is redeveloping Bhendi Bazar, the controversy as to the applicability of the provisions contained in Section 95A of MHADA Act, 1976 is required to be determined. Section 95A of the MHAD Act, 1976 reads as under :

12. In fact this interpretation has been correctly understood even by the Government of 19WP No.1680 of 2014 decided on 25.03.2015 WP-704-20 & WP-707-20.DOC Maharashtra as is clear from their letter dated 20th March, 2012 written to MHADA as well as to the Chief Officer, MBRRB. The subject of the said letter reflects initiating further action in connection with recognized re-development schemes under DCR 33(9). Paragraph 6 of the said letter clearly states that in the event the tenant opposes to vacate, to initiate necessary action by shifting the concerned tenant from the old building as per the provisions of the MHADA Act, 1976 while implementing the cluster re-development scheme.