BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE & ORS.versusTHE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

                        (2015) 6 S.C.R. 750


A            BALASAHEBARJUN TORBOLE & ORS.
                                  v.
      THE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
                               &ORS.
B
                   (Civil Appeal No.9363 of2011)

                          APRIL01,2015

           [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.]
c
       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
  prescribed format. From the documents submitted and
0
  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 of the list described
  as Annexure II and its verification is meant to find out
F the claims of genuine slum dwellers who may be eligible
  for benefits under the slum rehabilitation scheme. Such
  beneficial provisions meant to ameliorate the poor
  condition of slum dwellers should not be jettisoned only
  on technical grounds or procedural infirmities unless the
G persons coming to the court and seeking relief through
  writ petition are able to show that they have suffered
  injustice or legal injury. In the present case, the only legal
  injury to appellants as per their own submission was that
  if the private plots were treated as separate slum area,
H the residents of these plots alone could have formed and
BALASAHEBARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 753
         & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

carried out development scheme through their own A
cooperative society and gained some advantages
including monetary. Such a plea is too far-fetched to
establish legal injury to the appellants who claim to be
slum dwellers and on such plea, the appellants could
not have been granted relief in writ jurisdiction. [paras B
19, 20, 21] [775-A-H; 776-A-C]

     3. IDCR of 1991 particularly clause 1.15 of Appendix
IV clearly shows that 70% or more of the eligible hutment
dwellers in a slum or pavement in a viable stretch at one   C
place can agree to join a rehabilitation scheme. There is
no merit in the submission on behalf of the appellants
that the clause "in a viable stretch at one place" should
be read only in conjunction with the word 'pavement'
and not the word 'slum' although the use of the word        D
'or' between slum and pavement clearly shows both
have to be treated at same footing and therefore both
are qualified by the clause "in a viable stretch at one
place". Clause 3.14 providing for amalgamation/sub-
division of plots of Appendix IV of the OCR 1991 also       E
goes a long way to support the submission that the
statutory provisions clearly permit natural amalgamation/
sub-division of plots for the sanction of slum
rehabilitation project as well as for planning of Floor     F
Space Index (FSI) thereto. [para 22] [776-D-H]

    4. Non statutory provisions can hardly be treated as .
mandatory unless their non observance is shown to
have caused legal injury by affecting some valuable
rights of the writ petitioners. No such case could be G
made out by the appellants so as to require interference
on account of alleged shortcomings in preparation or
verification of Annexure II. In the light of statutory
provisions brought about through amendments in the H
                       '
 754         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 6 S.C.R.


  A1966 Act and in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,
   1888 and in the light of provisions of 1971 Act, the SRA
   was competent to approve the Scheme. The impugned
   judgment of the High Court also records that out of a
   total of 443 slum dwellers, 82% slum dwellers had
 B already given consent for redevelopment of the slum and
   redevelopment is going on by allotment of permanent
   alternative accommodation to the slum dwellers.
   Majority of occupants of the municipal plot as noted in
   the High Court judgment had vacated their structures
 C long back. Photographs produced show that
   redevelopment activity is going on and permanent
   structures have cc-me up on a large area. Such facts
   also were rightly considered by the High Court as
 D relevant for dismissing the writ petitions. [paras 28, 29,
   30] [780-G-H; 781-A-G]
           Pramila Suman Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 2
       SCC 729: 2008 (17) SCR 1517; Om Sai Darshan CHS v.
       State of Maharashtra 2006(5) All.MR 323 - Distinguished.
  E
                            Case Law Reference
           2006(5) All.MR 323      Distinguished        Para 23
           2008 (17) SCR1517       Distinguished        Para 28
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
• F 9363 of2011

       From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2010 of the
   High Court of Judicature of Bombay in W. P. (L) No. 1915 of
   2010.
 G                              With
           Civil Appeal No. 9147 of 2011
           Sanjay Parikh, Tushar Kochale, A.N. Singh, Ritwik Parikh,
       Anitha Shenoy, A~un Krishnan for the appellants.
  H        C.A. Sundaram, Shyam Divan, Atul Yeshwant Chitale,
BALASAHEBARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 755
         & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

Jayant Bhushan,Aftab Diamondwala, Devansh Mehta, Gaurav A
Agrawal, Sheetal Angane, Pradeep Jain, Devendra Patnakar,
Subrat Birla, S.C. Birla, SuchitraAtul Chitale, Priyanka Mehta,
Sanjay Kharde, Preshit Surshe, Chandan Ramamurthi, Prema
Mehta, Arjun Krishnan, Nitin S. Tambwekar, Aniruddha P.
Mayee, Asha Gopalan Nair for the respondents.                   B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. These civil appeals are
directed against judgment of Bombay High Court dated
31.08.2010 in W.P.(L) No.1915 of2010 and dated 10.08.2010 C
in W. P. No.316 of 2010 respectively whereby the writ petitions
preferred by the appellants were dismissed. For the sake of
brevity facts have been taken from C.A.No.9363 of 2011. The
High Court negatived all the five contentions advanced on
                                                                0
behalf of the appellants and upheld the order dated 17.04.2010
passed by the High Powered Committee of the Govt. of
Maharashtra dismissing Appeal No.62 of 2010 preferred by
the appellants to challenge the sanction of a scheme by the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority of lands bearing CTS No.106, E
106/1to5,107/1to9,108(Part), 111(Part), 111/1to77,80to
132 and 112(Part) of Village Kurla, Hutatma Prabhakar
Keluskar Marg (Match Factory Lane), Kurla(West), Mumbai
and also the orders for their eviction from the private lands.
                                                                F
     2. On behalf of the appellants, only C.A.No.9363 of 2011
was argued at length by learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Parikh.
He made it clear that this appeal relates not to the municipal
plots but only to private plots which are owned privately bearing
plot nos.106, 107 and 108. It is the appellants' case that a G
total of 124 families occupied dwellings in the slums existing
over said plots. According to Mr. Parikh the respondent
authorities committed error of law in treating the slum area
over municipal plots and those over private plots as one slum
area. This, according to Mr. Parikh, deprived the slum residents H
over private plots of having their own redevelopment activity
756          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A limited to private plots as per the wishes of 70% of its
  occupants. As per his submission, by illegally declaring a
  common slum area over two different kinds of lands, one owned
  by municipal authority and the other by private persons, the
  rights of the petitioners to have their own say has been diluted
B and adversely affected. In other words, the major grievance of
  the appellants is that the respondents have wrongly treated
  that there exists a consent for redevelopment from 70% of the
  occupants. Such claim, according to appellants, must be
  rejected and the appellants should be allowed to have the
C redevelopment through a cooperative of occupants of private
  plots exclusively. The other contention of the appellants is that
  their does not exist any valid Annexure II with respect to the
  private plots.

D          3. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocate,
      appearing for respondent no.10 relied upon the same very
      legal provisions which were highlighted by Mr. Parikh to submit
      that there is no requirement in law to divide a slum area on the
      basis of nature of ownership of the concerned plots and since
E     the private plots and municipal plots are contiguous, hence,
      for the purpose of redevelopment slum over both was rightly
      treated as one slum area and the same is permissible under
      the regulations. As a corollary, it was submitted that if the
F     socalled merger is permissible then the requirement of consent
      of 70% of the occupants stands fully complied. It was further
      submitted that as a fact the High Powered Committee and the
      High Court have found that there exists valid Annexure II issued
      even in respect of slums over private plots.
G          4. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Advocate, appearing for
      respondent no.8 who is the developer as well as owner of
      private lands, highlighted the rights and liabilities of owners of
      land declared as slum area and submitted that there was no
H     violation of law in grant of approval to the rehabilitation scheme
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR757
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.)

in the instant case to which respondent no.8 had given his A
consent. Mr. Sishodia, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority as well as Mr. Atul Chitale, Sr. Advocate
for the Respondent No.12-Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai also defended the action of the authorities as well as
order of the High Court upholding the decision taken by the B
High Powered Committee.

     5. The relevant facts and relief sought by the appellants
can very usefully be culled out from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of
the judgment under appeal :                                    C

     "1. What is challenged in this writ petition under Article
     226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 17 April
     2010 of the High Powered Committee of the Government
     of Maharashtra, dismissing Appeal No.62 of 2010 of the         o
     present petitioners. In the appeal, the petitioners
     challenged the sanction   " of a scheme by the Slum
     Rehabilitation Authority on lands bearing CTS No .106,
     106/1to5, 107/1to9, 108(pt), 111(pt), 111/1to77, 80
     to 132 & 112(pt) of village Kurla, Hutatma Prabhakar           E
     Keluskar Marg (Match Factory Lane), Kurla (West),
     Mumbai. A Letter of Intent was issued for the whole plot
     on 29 April 2006. Out of the above plots, plot Nos.106,
     107 and 108 are the plots in question which were earlier
     owned by respondent No.8 and were subsequently                 F
     declared as slums. The other lands are of the Municipal
     Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The petitioners herein
     are residents in the slums on private plots owned by
     respondent No.8.
                                                                    G
     2. The competent authority declared the above private
     plots as well as Mumbai Municipal Corporation plots to
     be slum areas under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra
     Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
     Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'Slum Act') by a           H
758   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     notification dated 29 January 2003. The slum dwellers
      residing on both municipal plots and private plots formed
      a society in the name of respondent No.10 and requested
      respondent No.8 to implement the slum scheme.
      Respondent No.8 is owner-cum-developer and
 B    respondent No.10 being their developer as per their own
      proposal to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short
      'SRA'). On 30 June 2004, the competent authority
      decided the eligibility of the slum dwellers of the private
      plots and held that out of the occupants of 124 structures,
c     occupants of 76 structures were eligible and that out of
      those, only 19 had given consent which amounted to 25%.
      Thereupon, on 13 January 2004, the respondent-
      Municipal Corporation issued Annexure-11 for the BMC
      Plots certifying that out of 367 slum dwellers, 251 were
D
      eligible and all of them have given their consent which
      represented 100% of the eligible slum dwellers. Since
      there was one proposal submitted by respondent Nos.8
      and 10 for both the plots i.e. BMC plots and private plots,
 E    the officers of SRA prepared a report and on taking the
      consent of the slum dwellers of both BMC plots and
      private plots, came to the conclusion that the consent
      was given by 81.32% of the slum dwellers of all the plots
      taken together for which one common scheme was
 F    submitted. On 29 June 2006, SRA approved the Slum
      Rehabilitation Scheme and issued a Letter of Intent in
      favour of respondent Nos.8 and 10. On 14 February
      2007, SRA approved the building plans for composite
      development of the Municipal plots as well as private
G     plots. On 9 September 2009, SRA issued a revised
      Letter of Intent with a condition that respondent Nos.8
      and 10 shall rehabilitate all eligible slum dwellers as held
      by the competent authority/Municipal Corporation.
      Condition No.23 of the Letter of Intent provides that
H
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 759
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

      individual agreements of at least 70% of the eligible slum A
      dwellers shall be submitted prior to the Commencement
      Certificate .

     .3. In the meantime, the petitioners who are residents in
      the slums on the private plots, were not shifting to the      B
      transit tenements. The Deputy Collector, Kurla issued
      show-cause notices to the petitioners and after hearing
      them, passed the impugned order dated 25 May 2009
      under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act requiring the
      petitioners to vacate the slums. Aggrieved by the said        C
      order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate
      Authority viz. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division,
      Mumbai who dismissed the appeal on 13 August 2009
      after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter
      filed a writ petition before this court and the petitioners   D
      were relegated the alternative remedy for filing an appeal
      before the Committee. The petitioners, accordingly, filed
      appeal No.62 of 2010 before the High Powered
      Committee on 15 March 2010. The High Powered
      Committee issued notice to the respondents and                E
      respondent Nos.8 and 1Ofiled their reply. The petitioners
      as well as respondent Nos.8 and 10 filed their written
      statement. After the hearing concluded on 17 April 2010,
      by an order dated 17 April 2010, the High Powered             F
      Committee dismissed the appeal. Hence the present
      writ petition which came to be filed on 17 August 201 O."
     6. At the outset it is deemed proper to take note of relevant
legal provisions. Sections 2( 15) and 2( 19) of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, '1966 Act') G
define 'local authority' and 'planning authority' in following terms


    "2(15) 'local authority' means-
                                                                    H
760         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     (a) the Bombay Municipal Corporation constituted under the
            Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, or the Nagput
            Municipal Corporation constituted under the City of
            Nagpur Municipal Corporation Act, 1948, or any
            Municipal corporation constituted under the Bombay
 B          Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949,

      (b) a Council and a Nagar Panchayat constituted under the
           Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
           Industrial Township Act 1965.
c
      (c)       (i) a Zilla Parishad constituted under the
            Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat SamitisAct,
            1961,

      (ii) the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing
D
             andArea DevelopmentAct, 1976,

      (iii) the Nagpur Improvement Trust constituted under the
            Nagpur Improvement TrustAct, 1936

E     which is permitted by the State Government for any area under
          its jurisdiction to exercise the powers of a Planning
          Authority under this Act;


 F    2( 19) 'Planning Authority' means a local authority and includes


      (a) a Special Planning Authority constituted or appointed or
           deemed to have been appointed under Section 40;
G
      (b) in respect of the slum rehabilitation area declared under
            Section 3C of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement
            Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Slum
            Rehabilitation Authority appointed under Section 3A of
H          the said Act;"
  BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 761
   & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

      It is rel.evantto note that' Planning Authority' not only means A
 a local authority but also includes by reference, the Slum
 Rehabilitation AuthoritY (SRA) appointed under Section 3-A
 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and
 Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act') in respect
 of a slum rehabilitation area.                                       8

        7. The power available to the planning authority to modify
  final development plan under sub-section (1) of Section 37 of
· the 1966Act has also been now vested in the SRA appointed
  under Section 3-Aofthe 1971 Act by adding sub-section(18) C
  to Section 37 through an amendment of 1996. This sub-section
  reads as follows :

       "(18) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
       (1), ifthe Slum Rehabilitation Authority appointed under o
       section 3Aofthe Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
       Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is satisfied
       that a modification of any part of, or any proposal made
       in, a final Development plan is required to be made for
       implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme E
       declared under the said Act, then, it may publish a notice
       in the Official Gazette, and in such other manner as may
       be determined by it, inviting objections and suggestions
       from any person with respect to the proposed
       modification not later than one month from the date of F
       such notice; and shall also serve notice on all persons
       affected by the proposed modification, and after giving
       a hearing to any such persons, submit the proposed
       modification (with amendments, if any), to the State
       Government to sanction."                                   G

      8. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was also
 amended in 1996 to insert Section 354AAA which enables
 vesting of power of the Commissioner and the Corporation
 relating to building regulations etc. in the SRA appointed under H
762       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A the 1971 Act. It reads as follows :
         "354AAA. Empowerment of Slum Rehabilitation
         Authority for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation
         Scheme.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any
B        other provisions of this Act, the State Government may,
         by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the
         powers of the Commissioner under this Chapter and the
         powers of the Corporation and the Committees of the
         Corporation under this Act, if any, relating to building
C        regulations and matters ancillary or consequential thereto,
         shall be exercised by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
         appointed under the Maharashtra Slum Areas
         (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
         1971, for the slum rehabilitation area declared under that
D        Act."

        9. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
  ar.d Redevelopment) Act, 1971(the1971 Act) was enacted to
  m• 1ke better provision for the improvement and clearance of
E slL m areas in the State and their redevelopment and for the
  protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants.
  Its following provisions are deemed relevant and, therefore,
  re~roduced hereinbelow:

F        "2(ga) 'Slum area' means any area declared as such by
         the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of section
         4 and includes any area deemed to be a slum area under
         section4A;

G        (h) 'Slum clearance' means the clearance of any slum
         area by the demolition and removal of building therefrom;
         (h-a) 'Slumlord' means a person,. who illegally takes
         possession of any lands (whether belonging to
         Government, local authority or any other person) or enters
H
8ALASAHE8 ARJUN TOR80LE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 763
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

     into or creates illegal tenancies or leave and licence A
     agreements or any other agreements in respect of such
     lands, or who constructs unauthorizeq structures thereon
     for sale or hire, or gives such lands to any persons on
     rental or leave and licence basis for construction, or use
     and occupation, of unauthorized structures, or who 8
     knowingly gives financial aid to any persons for taking
     illegal possession of such lands, or for construction of
     unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or
     attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent,
     compensation or other charges by criminal intimidation, C
     or who evicts or attempts to evict any such occupiers by
     force without resorting to the lawful procedure, or who
     abets in any manner the doing of any of the above-
     mentioned things.
                                                                D
     (h-b) 'Slum Rehabilitation Area' means a slum
     rehabilitation area, declared as such under sub-section
     (1) of section 3C by the CompetentAuthority in pursuance
     of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section
     38;                                                        E

     (h-c) 'Slum Rehabilitation Authority' means the Slum
     Rehabilitation Authority or Authorities appointed by the
     State Government under section 3A;
                                                                F
     (h-d) 'Slum Rehabilitation Scheme' means the Slum
     Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section 38;"

    10. Section 3Aenvisages a Slum Rehabilitation Authority
(SRA) for implementing slum rehabilitation schemes. Section G
38 provides for slum rehabilitation scheme. The power to
frame a general rehabilitation scheme is vested in the State
Government or the SRA concerned with the previous sanction
of the State Government for rehabilitation of slums and hutment
colonies in such areas. Section 3C vests power in the Chief H
764       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A Executive Officer of the concerned SRA to declare an area as
  slum rehabilitation area if such declaration is found justified in
  the light of an already published Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
  Section 3C runs as follows :

B        "3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area.-(1)
         As soon as may be after the publication of the Slum
         Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on
         being satisfied that circumstances exist in respect of any
         area, justifying its declaration as slum rehabilitation area
C        under the said scheme, may by an order published in
         the Official Gazette, declare such area to be a 'slum
         rehabilitation area'. The order declaring slum
         rehabilitation area (hereinafter referred to as 'the slum
         rehabilitation order') shall also be given wide publicity in
D        such manner as may be specified by the Slum
         Rehabilitation Authority.

         (2)Anyperson aggrieved by the slum rehabilitation order
         may, within four weeks of the publication of such order
E        prefer an appeal to the Special Tribunal; and the decision
         of the Special Tribunal shall be final.

         (3) On the completion of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,
         the Slum Rehabilitation Area shall cease to be such area."
F
       11. The other relevant provisions of the 1971 Act include
  Section 4 which vests power in the Competent Authority to
  declare an area to be a slum area. Against such declaration
  in the Official Gazette, appeal is provided to the Tribunal
G provided it is filed within 30 days. The Competent Authority
  under the Act has also been vested with power under Section
  11 to declare any slum area to be a clearance area from which
  buildings found to be not fit for human habitation may be cleared
  in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
H
       It is not in dispute that for its own lands the Bombay
BAt:ASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 765
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

Municipal Corporation has been appointed as the Competent A
Authority under Section 3 of the 1971 Act. For private lands,
the concerned Deputy Collector (Encroachment) has been
appointed as the Competent Authority.

     12. The Bombay Municipal Corporation has framed B
Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay under
the provisions of Section 159 of the 1966 Act. These
Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991
(for brevity 'OCR') came into force on 25.03.1991. Regulation
33(10) was inserted later in 1997. Its salient features are as C
follows:

     "I. Eligibility for redevelopment Scheme.-(a) For
     redevelopment of slums including pavements, whose
     inhabitants' names and structures appear in the electoral o
     roll prepared with reference to 1' 1 January1995 or a date
     prior thereto, but where the inhabitants stay at present in
     the structure, the provisions of Appendix IV shall apply
     on the basis of a tenement in exchange for an
     independently numbered structure.                           E

     (b) Subject to the foregoing provisions, only the actual
     occupants of the hutment shall be held eligible and the
     so called structure-owner other than the actual occupant,
     if any, even if his name is shown in the electoral roll for   F
     the structure, shall have no right whatsoever to the
     reconstructed tenement against that structure.

     II. Definition of Slum, Pavement, and Structure of
     hut.-(i) For this purpose, slums shall mean those G
     censused, or declared and notified, in the past or
     hereafter under the Maharashtra Slum Areas
     (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
     1971. Slum shall also mean areas/pavement stretches
     hereafter notified as Slum Rehabilitation Areas.    H
766   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     (ii) If any area fulfills the conditions laid down in section 4
      of the Maharashtra SlumAreas (Improvement, Clearance
      and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 to qualify as slum area
      and has been censused or declared and notified shall
      be deemed to be and treated as Slum Rehabilitation
B     Areas.

      (iii) Slum rehabilitation area shall also mean any area
      declared as such by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
      though preferably fulfilling conditions laid down in section
C     4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
      Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 to qualify as
      slum areas and/or required for implementation of any
      slum rehabilitation project. Any area where a project
      under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme has been approved
D     by CEO/SRA shall be deemed slum rehabilitation area.
      (iv) Any area required or proposed for the purpose of
      construction of temporary or permanent transit camps
      and so approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
E     shall also be deemed to be and treated as Slum
      Rehabilitation Areas and projects approved in such areas
      by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be deemed to
      be Slum Rehabilitation Projects.

F     (v) A pavement shall mean any Municipal/GovernmenU
      Semi-Government pavement and shall include any viable
      stretch of the pavement as may be considered viable for
      the purpose of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

G     (vi) A structure shall mean all the dwelling areas of all
      persons who were enumerated as living in that one
      numbered house in the electoral roll of the latest date,
      upto 1•1 January, 1995 and regardless of the number of
      persons, or location of rooms or access.
H
      (vii) A composite building shall mean a building
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 767
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

   comprising both rehab and freesale components or parts A
   thereof in the same building.

   (viii) Censused shall mean those slums located on lands
   belonging to Government, any undertaking of
   Government, or Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation B
   and incorporated in the records of the land owning
   authority as having been censused in 1976, 1980 or
   1985 or prior to 1st January 1995.

   Ill. Joint ownership with spouse.-The reconstructed         c
   tenement shall be of the ownership of the hutment-dweller
   and spouse conjointly, and shall be so entered and be
   deemed to be so entered in the records of the co-
   operative housing society, including the share certificates
   or all other relevant documents.                            D

   IV. Denotification as Slum Rehabilitation Area.-Slum
   Rehabilitation Authority on being satisfied that it is
   necessary so to do, or when directed by the State
   Government, shall denotify the slum rehabilitation area."   E

   Appendix IV contains various guidelines as indicated in
   Regulation 33(10) and some of the relevant guidelines
   are extracted hereinbelow:

   " RIGHT OF THE HUTMENT DWELLERS-                            F
   1.1 Hutment dwellers, in the slum or on the pavement
   eligible in accordance with the provisions of
   Development Control Regulation 33(10) shall, in
   exchange for their structure, be given free of cost a G
   residential tenement having a carpet area of (20.90 sq.m.
   (225 sq.ft)) including balcony, bath and watercloset, but
   excluding common areas.

                                                               H
768   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     1.3All eligible hutment dwellers taking part in the slum
      rehabilitation scheme shall have to be rehabilitated
      according to the provisions in this Appendix. It may be
      in situ and in the same plot as far as possible.

B
      1. 7 The individual agreement entered into between
      hutment-dweller and the owner/developer/co-operative
      housing society/NGO shall be in the joint names of
c     pramukh hutment-dweller and spouse for every structure.



      1.15 Where 70 per cent or more of the eligible hutment-
      dwellers in a slum or pavement in a viable stretch at one
D     place agree to join a rehabilitation scheme, it may be
      considered for approval.

      Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to Slum
      Rehabilitation Projects undertaken by the State
E     Government or Public authority or as the case may be a
      Government Company as defined in section 617 of the
      Companies Act, 1956 and being owned and controlled
      by the State Government.

F
      2. BUILDING PERMISSION                   FOR      SLUM
      REHABILITATION PROJECTS : -

      2.1 The proposal for each Slum Rehabilitation Project
G     shall be submitted to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
      with all the necessary documents, no-objection
      certificates, and the plans as may be decided by the
      Slum Rehabilitation Authority from time to time.

H     2.2 The approval to the Project shall be given by the
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 769
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.)

   Slum Rehabilitation Authority within a period of 30 days A
   from the date of submission of all relevant documents.
   In the event of a failure by Slum Rehabilitation Authority
   to do so, the said approval shall be deemed to have been
   given, provided the Project is in accordance with the
   provisions in this Appendix.                               B



   3.14 Amalgamation/Sub-division of Plots and
   Balancing of FSI thereon.-Any land declared as slum c
   rehabilitation area or on which slum rehabilitation project
   has been sanctioned, if it is spread on part or parts of.
   C.S. Nos. or CTS Nos. or S.Nos. shall be treated as
   natural amalgamation/sub-division/s of that C.S. or C.T.S.
   or S.No. or F.P. No. for which no separate approval for o
   amalgamation/sub-division of land would be necessary.



   3.16 The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation
   Authority may if required adjust the boundary of the plot E
   declared as slum rehabilitation area so as to suit the
   building design and provide proper access to the Project.


                                                             F
   7.7 Wherever slum and municipal/MHADA property are
   found together or adjoining it would be eligible for
   redevelopment using provisions of both OCR 33(7) and
    OCR 33(10). Development of slum and contiguous non-
   slum area under any other provisions of regulations may G
   be allowed together in order to promote flexibility of
   design as well as to raise more resources, provided that
   the FSI of non-slum quantum of area shall be restricted
   to that permissible in the surrounding Zone inclusive of
   admissible TOR on non-slum area. Such a project shall H
770       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A        be deemed to be a Slum Rehabilitation Project and
         plans for non-slum area including the plans for admissible
         TOR shall be approved by CEO, SRA. The power under
         D.C. Regulation 11 (4) for shifting and/or interchanging
         the purpose of designations/reservations shall be
B        exercised by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
         Rehabilitation Authority in respect of slum rehabilitation
         areas/projects.

         7.8 In case of two or more number of slums taken up for
C        development by same owner/developer/NGO/Co-
         operative Society of the Slum dwellers, both Rehab and
         Free Sale Components of the said slums can be
         combined and located in any proportion in those plots
         provided in any plot, the FSI does not exceed 2.5 subject
D        to the condition that the said slums have the same ratio
         of Rehab component to Free Sale Component as laid
         down in the Clause 3.3 to 3.5 of this Appendix."

       13. Besides the statutory provisions and statutory
E regulations of 1991 which have been modified from time to
  time, the concerned authority has also issued guidelines for
  the implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in Greater
  Mumbai and also circulars reflecting policy decisions. The
  guidelines, inter a/ia, indicate the procedure for submission,
F processing and approval of slum rehabilitation schemes. For
  the purpose of deciding the controversy at hand paragraphs
  2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 11 of clause IV relating to the procedure for
  submission indicate that 70% or more of the eligible hutment
  dwellers in a slum or pavement in a viable stretch at one place
G have to show their willingness to join slum rehabilitation scheme
  and come together to form cooperative society of all eligible
  hutment dwellers through a resolution to that effect. The chief
  promoter, office bearers and the members of the proposed
H society should collect the necessary documents and get the
 BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 771
  & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

plot surveyed/measured and prepare map of the plot showing           A
slum structures with the help of surveyors attached to the office
of Additional Collector (Encroachment) or the Deputy Collector
(Encroachment) of the zone.

       14. The procedure for submission, processing and              B
 approval of slum rehabilitation schemes also contains a
 guideline that by undertaking the survey, information of the
 proposed members/slum dwellers should also be collected
 andAnnexure II prescribed by SRA should be filled up so as to
 give the details of land occupied by the slum dwellers, number      C
 and type of structures such as residential, industrial etc. and
 the list of eligible and ineligible occupants and consent to join
 the scheme. The guidelines also disclose that earlier the
 procedure of filling up Annexure II format was required to be
 carried on by competent authorities but by way of subsequent        D
 simplification of procedure it is now required to be filled up by
 the promoter/cooperative housing society itself for submitting
 building proposal to SRA. The decision to search a competent
 developer to act as a promoter can be taken up by the
 proposed cooperative housing society of slum dwellers but it        E
 has been clarified that the society itself or NGO/developer/
owner can take up slum rehabilitation scheme as a promoter.
The promoter has to appoint an architect to prepare the plans
of the development of the slum area as per OCR 33(10). All           F
 required documents such as building plan, layout plan etc. along
withAnnexure l,Annexure II andAnnexure Ill are to be submitted
to SRA by the architect along with the application for approval
of the slum rehabilitation scheme. The proposal so submitted
is subjected to a pre-scrutiny by a designated engineer of SRA       G
to ensure that it is complete with all documents and then the
proposals are accepted. Thereafter the scrutiny of Annexures
I, II and Ill begins in different wings such as Building
Permissions, Eligibility Certification and Accounts & Finance
respectively. .                                                      H
772          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A      15. The guidelines also indicate that circular no.4 dated
  27.08.1997 had been issued by SRA to give details of the
  simplified procedure in the form of Appendix - D. Inter alia,
  this circular provides that in order to facilitate the disposal of
  slum rehabilitation schemes submitted for approval, the
B architect/developer or society bearers may submitAnnexure II
  in duplicate, as prepared by them in the prescribed proforma
  signed by owner/developer/GP/NGO. A copy of the same will
  be then forwarded to the competent authority for getting it
  certified. The proposal will be scrutinized on the basis of
C Annexure II submitted by the architect but approval will be on
  the basis of certifiedAnnexure II from the competent authority
  and for this the SRA will follow up with the respective competent
  authority.

D          16. While replying to the arguments of Mr. Sanjay Parikh,
      counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, Mr. Shyam Divan
      highlighted the basic facts first from the records of Civil Appeal
      No.9147 of 2011 to show that plot nos.106, 107 and 108 are
      the concerned private plots which are subject matter of Civil
E     Appeal No.9363 of 2011. The remaining plots, i.e., plot
      no.109(pt), 11 O(pt), 111 (pt) and 112(pt) are the concerned
      municipal plots which are subject matter of the other civil
      appeal. His stand is that the notification dated 13.02.2003,
F     no doubt contained a declaration of slum area under Section
      3 of the 1971 Act even in respect of plots of Municipal
      Corporation but that will not make any difference. He referred
      to various documents to point out that the concerned plots of
      Municipal Corporation were censused slum colony as per
G     municipal records and hence they were covered under the
      definition of 'slum' recognized under Regulation 33(10) which
      is part of Development Control Regulations for Greater
      Mumbai, 1991 (OCR). It was also pointed out that Chief
      Executive Officer of :::RA approved the slum developr'lent
H     scheme covering the slurr. over municipal plots as well as
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 773
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

private plots on 26.03.2006 resulting into issuance of letter of   A
intent on 29.06.2006 and first intimation of approval (planning
permission) on 14.02.2007. Thereafter only 6 persons
preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Slum Areas
Tribunal with a prayer to quash the notification dated 13th
February 2003 containing declaration of slums in respect of        B
 municipal plots. This appeal bearing no.22 of 2009 suffered
from delay of 6 years which was not condoned by the Tribunal
but while dismissing the same on 11.08.2009, the Tribunal
 noted the lacuna in the case of appellants that they had failed
to support even their claim that they were residents of the        C
municipal plots or that there did not exist any slum over the
area and how they were affected by the declaration when the
owner of the land, the Municipal Corporation, had no objection
to such declaration with respect to its own land. The writ         D
petition bearing No.316 of 2010 preferred against the order
of the Tribunal was dismissed by order dated 10.8.2010, under
appeal in Civil Appeal No.9147 of 2011. The High Court
noticed that out of 6 petitioners only petitioner no.1 was an
occupant of structure over the Municipal Corporation land          E
whereas petitioner nos.2 to 4 resided on private lands and
being not concerned with the municipal plots could not maintain
the writ petition. With respect to petitioner no.1, the court
noticed that his name was included in Annexure II of the SRA
scheme and he had accepted an amount of Rs.60,000/- as             F
rent in lieu of temporary transit accommodation and hen~e the
High Court held that petitioner no.1 was estopped from
challenging the notification declaring Municipal Corporation
plot as slum area.
                                                                   G
     17. No reply to the grounds mentioned by the High Court
for dismissing the writ petition has been offered on behalf of
the appellants in C.A.No.9147 of2011 and as noted earlier,
Mr. Parikh has confined his submissions and arguments only
against SRA scheme for the private plots which is subject H
774          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     matter of C.A.No.9363 of 2011. The main two contentions of
      Mr. Parikh thatthere is no validAnnexure II forthe private plots;
      and there was no valid consent of 70% of slum dwellers
      because the consent was not counted separately for residents
      of private plots have been addressed and replied at length.
B
           18. In respectofAnnexure II, Mr. Divan has placed reliance
      uponAnnexure P-6 to C.A.No.9363 of 2011 and some other
      materials from the same very record. He pointed out that in
      the synopsis, against the date 05.03.2004 the appellants have
C     averred in following words:- "Dy. Collector (E/1)-Chembur
      recorded the findings of his enquiry conducted on 20.11.2004
      in the list of Annexure 11 that not a single person on private plots
      gave consent in favour of Jan Kalvan SociPty. A true and correct
      copy of the eligibility list ofAnnexure II as verified by the Deputy
D     Collector (E/1)-Chembur purportedly acting as competent
      authority dated 5.3.2004 isAnnexure P-6". In continuation of
      above the appellants have also averred that 17 residents were
      not present on 20.01.2004 and on the basis of their consents
      allegedly given in the year 2001, the Deputy Collector (E/R)-
E     Chem bur wrongly treated them to have given consent to the
      slum rehabilitation scheme. It was pointed out that the
      documentAnnexure P-6 dated 05.03.2004 bears the signature
      of concerned Deputy Collector ar;id discloses verified list of
F     124 persons containing all the required details including
      consent etc. and on that basis it has been submitted that
      appellants' contention thatthere exists no Annexure II for the
      private plots is against their own pleadings and contrary to
      records. By referring to the prayers made in the writ petition, it
G     was also shown that there was no prayer to set aside or quash
      Annexure II for the private plots.

           19. The appellants have failed to produce any worthwhile
      material to show that there was noAnnexure II submitted before
H     the SRA or that there was 110 verification made by the compct '.:t
                                                                      0
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 775
 & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

authority. The records clearly disclose that there was an A
objection raised by the verifying authority that only 25% slum
dwellers of private plots have consented to the rehabilitation
scheme and not the 70% as required by the regulations and
the guidelines. However, such objection was considered and
overruled by the competent authority under the 1971 Act by B
holding that there was no illegality or error in clubbing the
adjoining municipal plots and private plots and treating 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. In such a situation, we do not find C
merit in the stand of the appellants that their writ petitior. snould
have been allowed on the ground that there was no Annexure
II available for the private plots.

      20. When in aggregate consent of 70% or more slum D
dwellers has been obtained, the essential purpose of slum
 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 prescribed format. From the E
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 F
documents. 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 of the list described asAnnexure II and
its verification is meant to find out the claims of genuine slum G
dwellers who may be eligible for benefits under the slum
rehabilitation scheme. Such beneficial provisions meant to
ameliorate the poor condition of slum dwellers, in our
considered view, should not be jettisoned only on technical
grounds or procedural infirmities unless the persons coming H
776         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     to the court and seeking relief through writ petition are able to
      show that they have suffered injustice or legal injury.

       21. In the present case, the only legal injury to appellants
  as per submissions of Mr. Parikh is that if the private plots
B were treated as separate slum area, the residents of these
  plots alone could have formed and carried out development
  scheme through their own cooperative society and gained
  some advantages including monetary. Such a plea is too far-
  fetched to establish legal injury to the appellants who claim to
C be slum dwellers and on such plea, in our considered view the
  appellants could not have been granted relief in writ jurisdiction
  which has been rightly denied to them, albeit for other reasons,
  after considering all their pleas on merits.

o       22. The only other substantial issue raised by Mr. Parikh
  that there could have been no clubbing of private lands with
  municipal lands for purpose of counting consent of 70% of the
  slum dwellers is also found to be without any merits. Mr. Divan
  rightly relied upon OCR of 1991 and particularly clause 1.15
E of Appendix IV which clearly shows that 70% or more of the
  eligible hutment dwellers in a slum or pavement in a viable
  stretch at one place can agree to join a rehabilitation scheme.
  There is no merit in the submission on behalf of the appellants
  that the clause "in a viable stretch at one place" should be read
F only in conjunction with the word 'pavement' and not the word
  'slum' although the use of the word 'or' between slum and
  pavement clearly shows both have to be treated at same
  footing and therefore both are qualified by the clause "in a
  viable stretch at one place". Clause 3.14 providing for
G amalgamation/sub-division of plots of Appendix IV of the OCR
  1991 also goes a long way to support the submission that the
  statutory provisions clearly permit natural amalgamation/sub-
  division of plots for the sanction of slum rehabilitation project
H as well as for planning of Floor Space Index (FSI) ihereto.
 BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 777
  & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

Clause 7.7 and 7.8 in the same Appendix D lend further support   A
to the aforesaid arguments of Mr. Divan.

      23. Although it is not. directly related to issues under
consideration already noticed earlier, Mr. Sundaram has
placed reliance on several provisions of Appendix IV noted B
above which is part of OCR 1991 to highlight that in respect of
private plots the owner has been given a recognition and role.
The relevant provisions to support the aforesaid submission
are in the introductory para 1 of Appendix IV as well as in
schedule annexed to the general slum rehabilitation scheme C
notified by the Government of Maharashtra in the Gazette dated
09.04.1998. The relevant provisions such as 2(B) a; 1d 11 (B)
& (C) do show that the owner can also be the developer for
implementing slum rehabilitation scheme and before carrying
out the redevelopment work of the slum located over private D
lands, the consent of owner is required otherwise in given
circumstances the Government will have to acquire such land
if slum rehabilitation scheme is to be implemented.

      24. Mr. Shishodia, learned senior advocate for the Slum E
 Rehabilitation Authority also placed reliance upon Section 4
 of the 1971 Act to submit that slum contemplated under the
Act is over an area and not plot and that the plot numbers are
relevant only for the limited purpose of identification of the area
over which a slum may be found existing. He supported the F
submission of Mr. Divan by referring to clause 1.3 and 1. 15 of
Appendix IV of OCR 1991. According to him, the use of the
term " .... in the same plot as far as possible" in clause 1.3
supports the interpretation advanced by Mr. Divan to the
expression "in a viable stretch at one place" in clause 1.15 G
and these provisions, according to him, go to show that a slum
is not plot specific but area specific and hence there is nothing
wrong in the action of SRA in treating the contiguous area
comprising of municipal plots as well as private plots as a slum H
778         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     area and approving a slum rehabilitation scheme for the same
      after ascertaining that consent of at least 70% of the residents
      of such slum area was available in favour of the rehabilitation
      scheme.

8      25. In our considered view, the submissions advanced by
  Mr. Divan, Mr. Sundaram and Mr. Shishodia deserve to be
  accepted as having merit. Mr. Atul Chitale, learned senior
  advocate forthe Municipal Corporation has referred to Section
  159 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
C for showing that it vests power to make regulations and,
  therefore, the Development Control Regulations framed under
  such statutory provision have to be followed bythe concerned
  authorities and such regulations providing for eligibility for
  redevelopment scheme, definitions of slum, qualification as
D slum area on account of being censused or declared as such,
  theirtreatment as deemed slum rehabilitation areas etc. cannot
  be ignored by the concerned authorities be it the Municipal
  Corporation or the SRA until a particular provision is challenged
  and found to be ultra vires on account of lack of power to frame
E the regulations or conflict with any superior law. According to
  Mr. Chitale, in the present case the authorities have acted in
  accordance with law and, therefore, neitherthe Committee nor
  the High Court found it fit to interfere with the approved
F rehabilitation scheme which will benefit all the slum dwellers
  of the slum area comprising of lands belonging to the Municipal
  Corporation as well as private lands and for which consent of
  more than 70% of such slum dwellers was found available after
  proper verification.
G     26. In view of discussions made above and on finding
  merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of respondents
  we record our agreement with the views expressed by the High
  Court that there is no illegality in clubbing of private land and
H Municipal Corporation land for declaring a contiguous area
 BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 779
  & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.)

as a slum area for the purposes of approving a slum A
rehabilitation scheme for such area. As discussed earlier, we
find no merit in the submission on behalf of tha appellants that
the required particulars were not compiled and were not
available in the form of Annexure II for the private lands or it led
to illegality and vitiated the approval of the particular slum B
rehabilitation scheme for the slum area in question. In our view,
the authorities had verified the particulars contained in
Annexure 11 and thereafter they were entitled to treat the entire
slum area existing over private lands as well as Municipal
Corporation lands as one slum area and since consent of 70% C
or more of slum dwellers of such area was available, the
authorities did not commit any illegality so as to vitiate the grant
of approval for slum development scheme in question.

       27. The appellants have relied upon judgment of Bombay          D
 High Court in the case of Om Sai Darshan CHS v. State of
 Maharashtra reported in 2006(5) All.MR 323 in support of
 the proposition stated in paragraph 15 of that judgment that
 so far as grant of approval to Annexure II is concerned, the
 power vests in the competent authority and not in the SRA.            E
 There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. In this case
 the facts reveal thatAnnexure II was verified by the competent
 authority and it found after verification that only 25% of the slum
dwellers over private plots had given their consent for the            F
 rehabilitation scheme. The opinion regarding adequacy of
 consent and its legal implications in the context of a larger
slum area extending to private as well as municipal lands was
 beyond the competence of the authority having power to verify
the actual state of affairs in respect of particulars of Annexure      G
 II. The opinion of the competent verifying or certifying authority
that consent was only of 25% slum dwellers was based upon
a wrong premise that the slum area was required to be divided
in at least 2 parts, based upon ownership of the lands
comprising the entire slum area. This view was rightly not             H
780          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     accepted by the SRA. When the entire slum area was treated
      as one slum area on which more than 70% slum dwellers were
      found to have given their consent, there was no legal
      impediment in acting upon the particulars already verified as
      per Annexure II available with the authorities. Hence in the
B     facts of the case the judgment noted above does not help the
      appellants.

           28. Mr. Parikh, has also placed reliance upon a judgment
      of this Court in the case of Pramila Suman Singh v. State of
C     Maharashtra (2009) 2 SCC 729 in support of the proposition
      that a composite slum area could not be declared as such
      when it covered private lands as well as Municipal Corporation
      lands. The facts of that case were quite different and as noted
      in paragraph 29, the SRA had rejected the plan of the appellant
D     of that case for as many as five reasons including the reason
      that appellant had not submitted proper Annexure II. In
      paragraph 52 this Court had recorded its satisfaction that the
      appellant had not annexed Annexure II in respect of concerned
      plot along with her originai application and therefore this Court
E     found no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the authority.
      Clearly the issue decided in that case was quite different and
      hence the judgment is not of any help to the appellants in this
      case. It may however be useful to note that in para 50 this
F     Court made observations to the effect that (i) Annexure 11 may
      not have any statutory force as it was a requirement under the
      guidelines and (ii) a conformity with the guidelines is required
      to be maintained unless the guidelines are found to be ultra
      vires. In the context of facts of the present case it i" :;11fficicr1i
G     to observe that non statutory provisions can hardly be treated
      as mandatory unless their non observance is shown to have
      caused legal injury by affecting some valuable rights of the
      writ petitioners. As discussed earlier no such case could be
      made out by the appellants so as to require interference on
H     account of alleged shortcomings in preparation or verification
 BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE v. THE ADMINISTRATOR 781
  & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

of Annexure 11.                                                     A

     29. The written submissions raise some other minor issues
too but these were not raised before and decided by the High
Court. Hence we refrain from going into such issues. It is,
however, necessary to record that in the light of statutory         B
provisions brought about through amendments in the 1966 Act
and in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and in the
light of provisions of 1971 Act, the SRA was competent to
approve the Scheme by taking the required ancillary decisions.
                                                                    c
       30. In course of arguments, it has been shown to us by
 filing details of petitioners/appellants that out of a total of 97,
 60 are eligible and 33 non-eligible. Name of 4 petitioners, i.e.,
 90, 91, 93 and 97 are not inAnnexure II to which several other
 persons have been added after further verification of later D
 claims, during the pendency of the litigation. It has also been
 shown through a summary that pending the hearing of this
 appeal, 26 appellants have settled their dispute and handed
over possession of their respective structures. The impugned
judgment of the High Court also records in paragraph 25 that E
out of a total of 443 slum dwellers, 82% slum dwellers had
already given consent for redevelopment of the slum and
redevelopment is going on by allotment of permanent
alternative accommodation to the slum dwellers. Majority of
occupants of the municipal plot as noted in the High Court F
judgment had vacated their structures' long back. Photographs
produced before us show that redevelopment activity is going
on and permanent structures have come up on a large area.
Such facts also, in our estimate, were rightly considered by
the High Court as relevant for dismissing the writ petitions.        G

   31. In the result, we find no merit in the appeals and the
same are dismissed but without any order as to costs.

Devika Gujral                                   Appeal dismissed.   H