Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7 Thereafter a Slum Clearance Order came to be issued on 01.09.2009. The same was in respect of 4123 sq.mtrs. already declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area plus 1045.50 sq.mtrs. which was an undeclared area and the additional area of 7212.50 sq.mtrs. which is the adjacent land belonging to the owner i.e. the Respondent No.10. The said Slum Clearance Order was published in the Government Gazette on 10.09.2009 and was also published in daily newspaper "Pudhari" in its edition dated 12.09.2009. The said order was also pasted on the conspicuous part of the locality and panchanama to the said effect was drawn on 15.10.2009. It is pursuant to the said Slum Clearance Order BGP. 11 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. that the developers i.e. M/s. Mulik Developers started the work of rehabilitation on the said property. In view of the fact that the Respondents were not vacating their structures, a notice came to be issued to them under Section 33 of the Slum Act which notice was dated 03.09.2014 calling upon the Respondent Nos.1 to 9 to vacate and hand over possession of their structures so as to facilitate implementation of the rehabilitation scheme for the slum dwellers on the said plot of land. The issuance of the said notice has triggered of the filing of the Appeals by the Respondents against the declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area dated 24.05.2006 issued under Section 3C and the Slum Clearance Order dated 01.09.2009 issued under Section 3D of the Slum Act. The Appeals filed on 22.04.2013 by the Respondent Nos.1 to 9 were numbered as 25 of 2014 and 26 of 2014 respectively. The Appeals were principally founded on the fact that it is only in respect of an area declared as slum under Section 4(1) that a declaration could be issued in respect of a Slum Rehabilitation Area and consequently a Slum Clearance Order could be passed. It was also the case of the Appellants i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein that the said declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been issued without notice to the persons like the Appellants and without their consent. It was the case of the Appellants that they were lessees in respect of the area of 5000 sq.ft. in the said plot BGP. 12 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. of land since 1960 and that the Appellant Nos.6 to 9 were tenants of the landlord and were therefore required to be issued a notice and their consent was required to be obtained. It was also the case of the Appellants that the Slum Clearance Order dated 01/09/2009 has been issued without hearing them. It was the case of the Appellants that they became aware of the declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area and the issuance of the Slum Clearance Order when in the Civil Suit No.97 of 2013 filed by them against the SRA, the Advocate for the SRA filed the documents in question for the first time. It was the case of the Appellants that they thereafter applied for certified copies of the said documents which were inter-alia declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area and the Slum Clearance Order on 18.03.2013 and obtained the same on 22.03.2013. It was therefore the case of the Appellants that the Appeal as filed by them after obtaining the certified copies was within time. The Appellants also questioned the declaration of an additional area of 1045.50 sq.mtrs. as Slum Rehabilitation Area and questioned the said declaration on the ground that before taking any such drastic action the Appellants were required to be heard. The Appellants also questioned the implementation of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the plot of land on the ground that the owners did not have the consent of 70% of the occupants as required. The Appellants also contended that in terms of the BGP. 13 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. information they had got under the Right to Information Act, their structures were not within the Slum Area declared as such and therefore the SRA did not have the jurisdiction and power to remove the structures of the Appellants and implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the additional area of 1045.50 sq.mtrs. The Appellants had therefore sought the quashing of the declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area Order dated 24.05.2006 as also the Slum Clearance Order dated 01.09.2009 passed by the Chief Execution Officer of the SRA. 8 On behalf of the SRA, a reply affidavit dated 31.01.2015 came to be filed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer Shri. Sudhakar Deshmukh. In the said reply the facts antecedent to the declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area have been stated. It was stated that an area survey was carried out. In the said survey the actual conditions existing on site were reported. It was stated that on being satisfied that conditions contemplated under Section 4(1) were satisfied that CEO, SRA had passed the Slum Rehabilitation Area Declaration Order on 24.05.2006. It was further stated that the objection of the Appellants in respect of their eligibility was considered and that the Appellants were held to be eligible. It was further stated in the said affidavit that pursuant to the declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area a Slum Clearance Order came to be issued on 01.09.2009 in respect of the said Slum Rehabilitation BGP. 14 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. Area. The publication of the said Slum Clearance Order was adverted in the affidavit. It was therefore the case of the SRA in the said affidavit that no relief could be granted to the Appellants in the said Appeal as the procedure required to be followed by the SRA was followed as such by the SRA prior to the declaration of the Slum Rehabilitation Area as also the issuance of the Slum Clearance Order.

(f) provision regarding sanction of Floor Space Index and transfer of development rights; if any, to be made available to the developer for development of the slum rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme;
(g) provision regarding non-transferable nature of tenements for a certain period, etc."

21 In so far as Section 3C is concerned, it provides for BGP. 41 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area. The said declaration can be issued as soon as may be, after the publication of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme after the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that circumstances in respect of any area, justifying its declaration as slum rehabilitation area under the said scheme exists, may by an order published in the Official Gazette declare such area to be "the slum rehabilitation area". 22 In so far as Section 3D is concerned, it postulates that on publication of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under sub-section (1) of Section 3B, the provisions of other Chapters of the Act shall apply to any area declared as a slum rehabilitation area, subject to the modifications as set out in the respective Sections. The said Section also provides that Chapter II and III stand omitted in respect of the Slum Rehabilitation Area. Hence in so far as the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is concerned, some of the Chapters/provisions of the Slum Act are required to be omitted and some are required to be substituted or modified as the case may be. Against a Slum Clearance Order issued under Section 3D an Appeal is provided to the Special Tribunal.

28 In so far Section 3C is concerned, it confers power on the CEO, SRA to declare any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, on being satisfied that circumstances exist justifying such declaration, the same is done by the CEO, SRA by issuing an order. The said Section itself provides for an Appeal, as under Section BGP. 48 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. 3C(2) any person aggrieved by the Slum Rehabilitation Area Declaration Order may within four weeks of the publication of such order prefer an appeal to the Special Tribunal. In so far as Section 3D is concerned, a Slum Clearance Order can be issued by the CEO under the said provision in respect of an area which is declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C. The said power is to be exercised for removal of the structures. As indicated above even against such an order an aggrieved person can file an Appeal to the Special Tribunal. 29 Hence, firstly under Section 3B we have a provisional Slum Rehabilitation Scheme which is published and after following the process of inviting objections and suggestions it is finalized and is published in the Official Gazette. Hence before finalization of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme there is an opportunity made available to a person to submit his objections and suggestions. After publication of such a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the CEO, SRA can declare any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the said scheme by an order passed under Section 3C. Any person aggrieved by the said order can challenge the same before a Slum Tribunal. Hence, in so far as the Slum Rehabilitation Declaration Order is concerned, an Appeal is provided to any person aggrieved by the same. The said provision therefore provides a post decisional hearing to an aggrieved party. The legislature as can be seen BGP. 49 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. from the said provision has advisedly provided a post decisional hearing as a pre-decisional opportunity has already been granted in so far as the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Section 3B(1) of the Slum Act is concerned. Hence though the Slum Rehabilitation Area Declaration Order may be made applicable to a particular area or land, the said area or land is covered by the general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and since it is only after such declaration that the provisions of the Slum Act become applicable to the area declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area, therefore the power exercised by the CEO, SRA, of declaring any area or land as a Slum Rehabilitation Area is essentially a legislative function. The distinction which was sought to be made by the Apex Court in the case of Cynamide India Ltd's case (supra) between legislative and non-legislative function was based on the two provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979. In Shri. Sitaram Sugar Company Limited's case (supra), the Apex Court sought to make a distinction on the basis whether the act is of general application, in which case the Apex Court held that it would be a legislative activity. In my view, the distinction drawn in the aforesaid judgments between what is a legislative function and what is a non-legislative function would have no application in the context of the statutory scheme contained in Sections 3B and 3C. Having regard to the statutory scheme as encompassed in BGP. 50 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. Section 3B and 3C, it is not possible to reach such a conclusion. It would therefore have to be held that in declaring any area under the scheme as a Slum Rehabilitation Area, the CEO, SRA is essentially carrying out a legislative function, the fact that an Appeal is provided against such a declaration or order would not detract from the fact that the function is essentially legislative in character. The legislature in fact by providing an Appeal has provided a safeguard against any arbitrary exercise of power by the CEO, SRA.

42 For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Slum Tribunal in so far as it sets aside the Slum Rehabilitation Area Declaration Order under Section 3C as also the Slum Clearance Order under Section 3D to the extent of 1045.50 sq.mtrs. is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set BGP. 68 of 69 Reserved Judgment in WP-8949-15 & group matters.doc. aside. Resultantly the Slum Area Declaration and the Slum Clearance Order would apply to the entire area of 5168.50 sq.mtrs. The above Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.