Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.5. On 28.07.2009, the High Power Committee approved petitioners' proposal under DCR 33(9).

10.6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contended that right from the beginning petitioners were fully aware of the fact that redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(9) was undertaken by them on the petitioners' property since acquired and thereafter belonging to respondent No.5 in WP1366_09.doc joint venture.

10.7. Reference has been made to letter of intent dated 04.07.2013 issued by the MCGM to petitioner No.2 in respect of the joint venture cluster redevelopment upon grant of approval by the Government. Clause 2 of the said letter of intent clearly stated that owner of the property is MHADA and hence land premium or built up area to be surrendered in lieu of land cost would be as decided by MHADA, besides reimbursing expenditure incurred by the Board towards structural repairs, demolition etc. before issue of commencement certificate.

19.1. Section 88 deals with the power of the Board to undertake structural repairs to buildings which are in ruinous condition and likely to deteriorate and fall. As per sub-section (1) which is subject to other provisions of Chapter VIII, where the Board on consideration of information given by the Municipal Commissioner or on a report of its authorized officer or on other information in its possession, is satisfied that any building, which is occupied by persons, is in such ruinous or dangerous condition, that it is imminently likely to fall unless structural repairs are urgently done which will render it fit and safe for habitation, then in such cases the Board shall undertake such repairs subject to provisions of sub-section (3). As per sub-section (2), the Board may prepare a list of such buildings in order of priority or urgency. Under WP1366_09.doc sub-section (3), if the Board is of the opinion that, (a) the cost of structural repairs to a building per square meter will exceed such amount as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette to be the structural repairs cost per square meter, or (b) the cost of structural repairs to a building per square meter will exceed the amount specified under clause (a) but the size of the land on which such building is standing is such that for some reason or the other it would not be possible or economical to erect any new building thereon and there is an adjoining building but the cost of structural repairs to such building per square meter does not exceed the amount specified under clause (a), then in such cases falling under both the clauses, the Board may not consider such building or buildings for repairs and instead may issue a certificate to that effect to the owner thereof, fix a copy of the relevant certificate in some conspicuous part of the building or buildings for the information of the occupiers and proceed to take action as provided in Chapter VIII. As per the first proviso, in cases of special hardship, the Board may consider a building for structural repairs even if the cost of such repairs is likely to exceed the limits specified. As per the second proviso, where the occupiers of the building undertake that they shall bear the cost of such repairs which are in excess of the amounts specified under clause (a) and abide by such terms and conditions for payment of the excess cost to the Board, the Board may carry out structural repairs to such building.

19.2. The procedure to be undertaken before carrying out structural repairs is laid down in section 89. Section 90 deals with temporary accommodation pending structural repairs.

19.3. Submission of proposal for acquisition is dealt with in section 92. As per sub-section (1), if in respect of any building the Board has issued a certificate under sub-section (3) of section 88 or the Municipal Commissioner under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 has issued a written notice requiring the owner or occupier WP1366_09.doc thereof to pull down the building with a view to preventing all causes of danger therefrom and the Board is of the opinion that such building is not capable of being repaired or rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expense and is dangerous or injurious to the health or safety of the inhabitants thereof or where the Mumbai Corporation under section 354- R of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 has passed a resolution declaring the area in which any such building is situated as the clearance area, the Board may submit to the State Government a proposal to acquire the land including a proposal for issue of a clearance and compulsory acquisition order to clear and acquire the land with the existing building in whatever condition and for constructing a new building on the same site and simultaneously prepare plans and estimates for the same. As per sub-section (2) in preparing the plans and estimates of the building to be reconstructed, it shall be the duty of the Board to see that all the occupiers in the building proposed to be demolished shall as far as practicable be provided in the reconstructed building accommodation with a floor area equivalent to their floor area in the old building.

20. Having analyzed the above, we may now advert to the facts of the present case.

20.1. Show-cause notice was issued by respondent No.6 on 25.05.2005 to the petitioners for acquisition of land admeasuring approximately 4721.60 sq.mtrs. with building Nos.289/299, 299A and 299B of survey Nos.641 and 642. The said notice was issued under sub sections (3) and (4) of section 93 of the MHADA Act. The occupiers of the buildings and the owners were called upon to submit objections and suggestions within thirty days. In the list of tenants/occupants as per 'schedule-C' appended to the notice, names of tenants/occupants of only the three buildings i.e. building Nos.289/299, 299A and 299B were mentioned. Petitioners in their objection dated 27.06.2005 strongly objected to the acquisition process. It was pointed out that the chawls were strong enough to be sustained for some more time as per report of structural engineer. That apart, the chawls were very much repairable. Tenants WP1366_09.doc were opposed to redevelopment by MHADA. If tenants were interested, it was pointed out, petitioners could carry out repairs/reconstruction. Further it was brought to the notice of respondent No.6 that the list appended to the show-cause notice did not contain names of all the tenants/occupants. Therefore, respondent No.6 was requested to drop the acquisition proceedings.