LexBALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE & ORS. versus THE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2015) 6 S.C.R. 750 BALASAHEBARJUN TORBOLE & ORS. v. THE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER &ORS. (Civil Appeal No.9363 of2011) APRIL01,2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.] Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: s. 3A, 38, 3C, 4 - Object of- Discussed. D Clubbing of slum areas over municipal plots and those over private plots - Appellants, residents in the slum on private plots owned by developer/owner of the land - Grievance of appellants that authorities have wrongly treated that there existed a consent for redevelopment from 70% of E the occupants and in declaring common slum area over two different kind of lands - Appellant claimed that they should be allowed to have the redevelopment through a cooperative of occupants of private plots exclusively - Held: There is no F illegality in clubbing of private land and Municipal Corporation land for declaring a contiguous area as slum area for the purposes of approving a slum rehabilitation scheme for such area - The authorities having verified the particulars contained in Annexure II, were entitled to treat the G entire slum area existing over private lands as well as Municipal Corporation lands as one slum area and since consent of 70% or more of slum dwellers of such area was H 750 BALASAHEBARJUN'TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 751 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER available, the authorities did not commit any illegality so as A to vitiate the grant of approval for slum development scheme in question - Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - ss.2(15), 2(19)- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888- s.354AAA. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The procedure for submission, processing and approval of slum rehabilitation schemes contains a C guideline that by undertaking the survey, information of the proposed members/slum dwellers should also be collected and Annexure II prescribed by SRA should be filled up so as to give the details of land occupied by the slum dwellers, number and type of structures such as o residential, industrial etc. and the list of eligible and ineligible occupants and consent to join the scheme. The guidelines also indicate that circular no.4 dated 27 .08.1997 had been issued by SRA to give details of the simplified procedure. This circular provides that in E order to facilitate the disposal of slum rehabilitation schemes submitted for approval, the architect/developer or society bearers may submit Annexure II in duplicate, as prepared by them in the prescribed proforma signed by owner/developer/GP/NGO. A copy of the same will F be then forwarded to the competent authority for getting it certified. [paras 14, 15] [771-B-D; 772-A-C] 2. The appellants have failed to produce any material to show that there was no Annexure II submitted before G the SRA or that there was no verification made by the competent authority. The records clearly disclosed that there was an objection raised by the verifying authority that only 25% slum dwellers of private plots have consented to the rehabilitation scheme and not the 70% H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R. A as required by the regulations and the guidelines. However, such objection was considered and overruled by the competent authority under the 1971 Act by holding that there was no illegality or error in clubbing the adjoining municipal plots and private plots and treating B the same as a slum area and permitting slum rehabilitation scheme for such slum area in aggregate as consent of 70% of the slum dwellers was found existing. When in aggregate consent of 70% or more slum dwellers has been obtained, the essential purpose of slum C rehabilitation scheme cannot be put to peril on the ground that certain procedures were not strictly followed or some steps were against procedures prescribed in the guidelines for preparation of Annexure II in a 0 prescribed format. From the documents submitted and shown at the stage of hearing, it has been noticed that even subsequent claims of some slum dwellers that they are eligible for rehabilitation have been verified and many have been allowed on the basis of relevant documents E because it is not infrequent that at the time of one particular checking or verification some dwellers may be absent and might have gone to some other place. Clearly the process of preparation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.