Summary
Occupants of a plot under a slum rehabilitation scheme challenged an eviction notice issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, contending that the plot was a MHADA layout to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(5) DCR and that no slum notification had been issued. The Court held that a censused slum falls within the definition of slum under Regulation 33(10) DCR without any separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act, that the plot was not a MHADA layout, that the unchallenged AGRC order had attained finality, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues
- Whether a plot admittedly owned by MHADA but declared a censused slum must be redeveloped by MHADA under Regulation 33(5) DCR rather than by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Regulation 33(10) DCR.
- Whether redevelopment under the Slum Act requires a separate notification declaring the area a slum under Section 4 of the Act when the area is a censused slum.
- Whether the appellants could challenge the second eviction notice when the earlier notice had been affirmed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in an order they never challenged.
- Whether appellants who were not parties before the High Court could obtain relief directly from the Supreme Court.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(ga), 3, 3A, 3B and 4, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971The Court noted that 'slum area' means an area declared under Section 4(1) or deemed a slum under Section 4A, that the Competent Authority declares slum areas, and that Chapter I-A (inserted in 1996) creates the Slum Rehabilitation Authority which frames and implements rehabilitation schemes. It held that for a censused slum no separate declaration under Section 4 is needed because such slums are already within the definition in Regulation 33(10) DCR. (¶¶ 6, 7, 16)
- Sections 33 and 38, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971Both eviction notices (28.01.2019 and 06.12.2022) were issued by the Competent Authority under these provisions, which empower it to order eviction of occupants who have not vacated pursuant to an order of the Authority and to order demolition, after a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The Court found no legal infirmity in the exercise of this power. (¶¶ 4, 9, 16)
- Section 35(1A), Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971The appellants' challenge to the first notice was decided against them by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee under this provision on 12.06.2019; that order was never challenged and was held to have attained finality. (¶¶ 4, 11, 12, 14)
- Regulation 33(10), including 33(10)(II)(i) and 33(10)(II)(viii), Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991Regulation 33(10)(II)(i) defines slums for redevelopment to include censused slums, and 33(10)(II)(viii) defines censused slums as those on government or BMC land recorded as censused in 1976, 1980, 1985 or before 1 January 1995. Since the site was declared a censused slum in 1981 and MHADA had given a no-objection certificate, redevelopment by the SRA under Regulation 33(10) was held valid. (¶¶ 10, 11, 16)
- Regulation 33(5), Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991The appellants argued that the plot was a MHADA layout to be redeveloped only by MHADA under this regulation. The Court rejected this because MHADA consistently stated the plot was never a MHADA layout and had grown into a slum, so redevelopment fell under Regulation 33(10), not 33(5). (¶¶ 10, 11, 16)
- General scheme (MHADA), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976The Court noted that MHADA, constituted under this Act, operates in a field overlapping in part with the Slum Act, but found it unnecessary to examine that overlap since the plot, though MHADA property, was not a MHADA layout and the appellants were only transit camp tenants, not MHADA tenants. (¶¶ 8, 11, 16)
Held
- A censused slum is a slum for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) DCR, and no separate notification declaring it a slum area under Section 4 of the Slum Act is required. A site declared a censused slum in 1981, for which MHADA has given a no-objection certificate to the SRA, may be redeveloped by the SRA under Regulation 33(10); the contention that no slum notification had been issued was misconceived. (¶ 16)
- Though the land was technically MHADA property, it had never been declared part of a MHADA layout and had grown into a slum over the years; for practical reasons it had to be redeveloped by the SRA under Regulation 33(10) DCR and not as a MHADA layout under Regulation 33(5). The redevelopment under the Slum Act and Regulation 33(10) suffered from no legal infirmity. (¶¶ 11, 16)
- The appellants were transit camp tenants paying transit fees and service charges to MHADA, not rent; there was no landlord-tenant relationship with MHADA and they were ineligible slum dwellers. The AGRC's order of 12.06.2019 rejecting their challenge to the first notice was never challenged and attained finality; their plea of ignorance of that order, in proceedings in which they had participated, showed want of diligence, and the High Court rightly disbelieved it and noted that they had not disclosed the earlier notice when challenging the later one. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Where a sanctioned slum rehabilitation scheme has reached an advanced stage with the considered consent of more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of a bona fide society, occupants found ineligible, who have used dilatory tactics and declined accommodation offered under the scheme, cannot be allowed to disturb the project, as that would defeat its purpose of benefiting a large number of eligible slum dwellers. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- Appellants who were never parties before the High Court and approached the Supreme Court directly as fence-sitters claiming to be affected by the High Court's order were not entitled to relief; in any event their case had no merit. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the High Court's order dated 04.01.2023 declining to interfere with the eviction notice dated 06.12.2022 upheld. Pending applications disposed of; interim orders vacated.