LexLULLU VAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
LULLU VAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1973 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 22, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 – Disputed property
vested in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM-
respondent no.2) – Appellants’ predecessor-in-interest submitted
application to MCGM seeking lease of the said land and paid
earnest money – Slum structures pre-existing on the said land –
1971 Act enacted – Said area entitled for redevelopment – Slum
dwellers formed co-operative housing society (respondent no.4) –
Slum rehabilitation of the said area approved by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) by issuing Letter of Intent (LoI) vide
order dtd.16.06.1999 – Respondent no.4 appointed developer
(respondent no.5) for implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme
and build new flats – Writ petition filed before High Court,
challenging order dtd.16.06.99 – Liberty to the appellants to file
representation before the High Power Committee (HPC) – HPC vide
order dtd. 20.06.09 directed SRA to pass orders on merits – SRA
revalidated the LoI in favour of the respondent nos.4 &5– HPC
vide order dtd. 05.02.11 set aside the said order – MCGM issued
letter dtd. 17.01.15 withdrawing its earlier orders claimed as
acceptance of the claim of appellants’ predecessor-in-interest as
lessees – Appellants filed suit challenging letter dtd.17.01.15– Suit
pending adjudication – Respondent nos.4&5 filed writ petition
challenging order dtd 05.02.11 – High Court set aside the order
dtd 05.02.11 allowing the respondents to proceed with the
redevelopment – On appeal, held: At this stage of litigation, Court
not inclined to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or to decide
questions of law on merits which call for detailed scrutiny, as these
issues are the subject matter of the trial – Adjudication of the
dispute, presently before the Court has to be based on principles of
equity – Very basis of the appellants’ right, i.e. the lease deed, is
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 454
454
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
itself disputed as there exists no registered document to that effect–
Appellants averred that their name appears in the Estate Department
records as lessees– HPC’s order dtd. 20.06.09 declared the
appellants to be lessees for 999 years – Said order not challenged
by the respondents, it has now attained finality – This very issue is
the subject matter of the pending civil suit– Refrained from making
any observations regarding the same – Balance of convenience tilts
in favour of the respondents, as the completion of the scheme is in
greater public interest – However, appellants contend that they have
paid consideration in exchange of the lease-hold right which is the
subject matter of the trial – Appellants granted liberty to make such
prayer, supported by relevant materials, before the trial court in the
pending suit – Any observation made by the High Court affecting
the merit of the matter, set aside – Not necessary to pass any orders
in the Contempt Petition preferred by the appellants and the same is
disposed of – Development Control Regulations – Regulation 33
(10) – Equity.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At this stage of litigation Court is not inclined
to attempt to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or to decide
questions of law on merits which call for elaborate arguments or
detailed scrutiny, as these issues are the subject matter of the
trial. The aforesaid contentions raised by the parties are to be
resolved during the trial. The adjudication of the dispute has to
be based on principles of equity. The party seeking the remedy
has to make out a prima facie case on merits, and has to satisfy
the court that there is some basis to its claim regarding the
existence of his right. Further, the court must balance the
comparative hardship or mischief which is likely to occur from
withholding the relief, against that which would likely arise from
granting it. It has to be further established that non-interference
by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party
seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the
party except to grant the relief sought. [Paras 22, 25]
[465-A, B, D, E]
1.2 The very basis of the appellants’ right, i.e., the lease
deed, is itself disputed as there exists no registered document
to that efExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.