Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX 6 When all these Petitions came up before us, we found that the result of Writ Petition No.4721 of 2022 (filed by MTNL) will more or less decide the result in the other Writ Petitions also. We say this because if MTNL's Petition succeeds, and we hold that the acquisition of 531.9 Sq. Mtrs of CTS No.1800 is bad in law, then no slum rehabilitation project can proceed especially without the NOC of MTNL. If, on the other hand, we find that the challenge to the acquisition is unjustified, then MTNL cannot be held to be the owner of the said land and consequently, requiring their NOC for the slum rehabilitation project [as owners of the said land], cannot and would not arise. In these circumstances, we heard the parties first on Writ Petition No.4721 of 2022. WRIT PETITION NO.4721 OF 2022 7 As mentioned earlier, this Writ Petition is filed by MTNL inter alia challenging two things. Firstly, they challenge the declaration of the said land as a "slum area" under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act. Consequently, they also challenge the acquisition of the said land under Section 14(1) of the said Act. 8 Before we deal with the arguments canvassed in Writ Petition No.4721 of 2022, it would be necessary to set out some 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX very brief facts. It is the case of MTNL that land bearing CTS Nos.1718, 1719 & 1800 of village Vile Parle, Tal. Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District (hereinafter referred to as the "Larger Land") was acquired for the construction of a Telephone Exchange Building and staff quarters of the Bombay Telephone, Post and Telegram Department. This acquisition was done on 20 th March 1981 from the original owners by following the proper procedure as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to MTNL, possession of the Larger Land [and which includes 531.9 Sq. Mtrs. of CTS No.1800 (the said land)] was handed over to the Bombay Telephone, Post and Telegram Department. Thereafter, by a Deed of Sale between MTNL and the President of India dated 30th March 1987 all the assets acquired and owned by/through the Bombay Telephone Service and Delhi Telephone District, was sold, transferred and conveyed to MTNL. This is how MTNL claims to be the owner of the Larger Land, including the said land [ i.e. 531.9 Sq. Mtrs. of CTS No.1800].

9 Since there were slums on the said land [531.9 Sq.Mtrs of CTS 1800], the same was declared as a "slum area" vide a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act. Finally, since the said "slum area" was not being developed, a proposal 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX was sent by the Slum Society for acquisition of the said land, and which was done under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act. 10 In this factual backdrop, Ms. Dikshita Gupte, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of MTNL, submitted that Section 3C of the Slum Act contemplates declaration of a Slum Rehabilitation Area. She submitted that under Section 3C(1), after publication of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, if the Chief Executive Officer, on being satisfied about the circumstances in respect of any land, whether or not previously declared as a slum area, justifying its declaration as the Slum Rehabilitation Area for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, shall, after giving the land owners 30 days notice, and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order published in the Official Gazette, declare such land to be a Slum Rehabilitation Area. She submitted that in the facts of the present case, admittedly no notice has been given to the landowner and which is MTNL. This apart, she relied upon Section 3Z-6 of the Slum Act to contend that notwithstanding anything contained in the Slum Act, nothing in Chapter I-C shall apply to inter alia lands belonging to the Central Government or any entity thereof unless the same is voluntarily offered for the housing scheme. She submitted that MTNL, being 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX a Company owned and controlled by the Central Government, is an entity thereof and any lands belonging to this entity cannot be utilized for any housing scheme unless voluntarily offered by MTNL. If this be the case, then, the entire acquisition proceedings are bad, was the submission.

14 We find that under the scheme of Section 4, and which deals with a declaration of a particular land as a "slum area", does not contemplate any notice being issued to the landowner. A declaration under Section 4(1) is given by the Competent Authority only once it's satisfied that a particular area is or may be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood, by reason of that 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX area having inadequate or no basic amenities, or being insanitary, squalid, overcrowded or otherwise. The Competent Authority can also declare a particular area as a "slum area" when buildings in that area, used or intended to be used for human habitation are in any respect unfit for human habitation, or by reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors, is detrimental to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 clearly gives a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by such declaration to approach the Slum Tribunal [under the Slum Act] within a period of 30 days from the date of the said declaration. In fact, the statute also stipulates that no such appeal filed after the expiry of 30 days shall be entertained. At least under Section 4, it is clear that at the time of declaring a particular land as a "slum area", no notice is required to be given to the landowner. Further no other provision under the Slum Act or the Rules framed thereunder have been brought to our attention which stipulate that before a particular land is declared as a "slum area" [under Section 4(1)], notice has to be issued to the landowner. Further, the landowner, who is aggrieved by such declaration, and which would then be in 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX the public domain [as the same is notified in Official Gazette], would have to challenge such declaration before the Slum Tribunal within 30 days of such declaration. We therefore find the argument canvassed by Ms. Gupte that non issuance of notice to the landowner before issuing a declaration under Section 4(1) is fatal to the acquisition, is wholly unfounded. At least Section 4 does not anywhere contemplate that notice has to be given to the landowner before his land is notified as a "slum area". This is apart from the fact that in the present case a public notice dated 22nd December 2003 was published in the newspaper before the said land was declared as a "slum area" under section 4(1) of the Slum Act. In fact, the entire procedure followed by the authorities before declaring the said land as a "slum area" is set out in paragraphs 6 to 11 of the Affidavit dated 12 th June 2023 filed by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

15 As far as the reliance placed on Section 3Z-6 (g) is concerned, as stated earlier, Section 3Z-6 categorically contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Slum Act, nothing in Chapter I-C shall apply inter alia to the lands belonging to the Central Government or any entity thereof unless the same is offered voluntarily for the housing scheme. In fact, the 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX heading of the sub-section itself says that the provisions of Chapter I-C are not to apply in certain areas. The declaration of the MTNL's land as a "slum area" is not under Chapter I-C but under Chapter II of the Slum Act. In these circumstances, we find that the reliance placed on Section 3Z-6 (g) to buttress the argument that no land belonging to the Central Government and/or entity thereof can be declared as a "slum area" is wholly misconceived. This is apart from the fact that the Central Government has filed an Interim Application in Writ Petition (L) No.5467 of 2022 wherein, it has stated that the Union of India/Department of Telecommunication has not retained the said land for any purpose, and therefore, MTNL is a proper and necessary party to safeguard its interest in its asset and that the Union of India/department of Telecommunication has no role to play in the matter. In fact, in this Interim Application, Union of India has also categorically stated that MTNL is a board driven public Sector Undertaking and MTNL's management is completely free to decide and finalize its commercial business and administrative policies. The Government does not interfere in its day-to-day affairs, including administrative matters. We, therefore, find no merit in the argument canvassed by Ms. Gupte that the declaration of the said land as a "slum area" under 1st December, 2023 Aswale WPL.5467.22.DOCX Section 4 (1) of the Slum Act, is contrary to law or suffers from any legal infirmity.