Supreme Court of India
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKURversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1505
- Decided
- 19 December 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority was justified in rejecting the appellant's application because it was procedurally deficient, the earlier municipal certificate lacked statutory force, and a prior scheme covering the same land already existed.
Summary
The appellant, a developer, sought a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) for a composite slum‑rehabilitation scheme covering two plots, one of which (Plot 559) was reserved for recreational use. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority rejected her application, stating it was deficient and that Annexure‑II for part of Plot 569 had already been issued to another cooperative society. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary, that she had locus standi, and that the earlier municipal certificate was not a statutory NOC. The Supreme Court held that the authority correctly rejected the application because the required annexures were not filed, the earlier municipal certificate had no statutory force, and the appellant had not challenged the prior order despite knowledge of it. The Court also clarified that the planning statutes do not obligate a municipal corporation to issue a NOC and that the appellant’s composite scheme conflicted with an existing scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity and statutory effect of the municipal corporation's 1996 certificate as a 'No Objection Certificate' under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
- Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the denial of the NOC.
- Whether the appellant's application was defective for not attaching Annexure‑I for Plot 569 (part) and for lacking a certified financial statement.
- Whether the existence of a prior slum‑rehabilitation scheme for the same land precludes a new composite scheme.
- Whether the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was required to consider the appellant's proposal despite the pending scheme of another developer.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888s. 337
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991s. Regulation 33(10), s. Regulation 5(3)
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966s. 159, s. 44, s. 45
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971s. 14, s. 2(e), s. 2(h), s. 30, s. 3A, s. 3K, s. 3V
Subjects
slum rehabilitationno objection certificatecomposite applicationplanning authoritylocus standidefective applicationMaharashtra Regional and Town Planning ActMaharashtra Slum Areas Actdevelopment control regulations
Judgment
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1517
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR A
v.
~ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7435 of 2008)
DECEMBER 19, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Urban Development - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme -
. Composite application for slum rehabilitation for two plots -
i One of the plots reserved for recreational purpose - Grant of c
'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the plot reserved for
recreational purpose - Denial of, in respect of the other plot
on the ground that in respect of that plot permission for
rehabilitation was granted to another developer - The order
of denial not challenged by the developer - Writ Petition
D
seeking direction to authority to consider her proposal -
Direction by High court to consider the application - Authority
holding that the developer not entitled to permission as her
1 application was deficient and the permission for a part of the
plot had already been given to other developer - Challenged
- High Court refusing to interfere with the matter - On appeal, E
held: Permission rightly rejected - The developer not entitled
to relief, as she did not challenge the validity of the order
denying her permission - The application was also rightly
found deficient - Permission in respect of Plot No. 559 was
not correct as the same was reserved for recreational purpose F
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - s.
159 - Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay,
1991 - Regulation 33 (10) - Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 -
Chapter 1A. G
Final plot Nos. 559 and 569 in Bombay Municipal
Area were demarcated ·in terms of provisions of
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and
the scheme framed thereunder. The Plot No. 559 was
1517 H
1518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A declared as slum land by a Notification issued u/s. 3 (a)
of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Respondent No. 6 (a Cooperrative Group Housing
Society) filed an application for development of part of
B Plot No. 569. On 15.10.1996 Municipal Corporation
granted a 'No Objection Certificate' in its favour in
requisite Form i.e. Annexure-11 including the four chawls.
It gave all the particulars of eligible slum dwellers.
Appellant also appl!ed for a 'No Objection certificate'
C in respect ot'Plot No. 559 and a part of Plot No. 569. 'No
Objection certificate' was granted in respect of Plot No.
559. As regards the part of Plot No. 569, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority called upon Municipal
Corporation to clarify as to whether Certificate under
0 Annexure II in respect of the dwellers of the chawl could
be issued. Municipal Corporation rejected the proposal
by_letter dated 31.8.2001 stating that it had already issued
Annexure II in favour of respondent No. 6 and all the
names of the dwellers of the chawl had been appearing
therein.
E
Respondent No. 6 commenced the construction
activities. As per direction of the court, pursuant to a
litigation at the instance of the_ a-ppellant, Slum
Development Authority passed the order on the grounds
F that application seeking 'No Objection Certificate' was
deficient and Annexure II had already been granted to
respondent No. 6. Writ petition challenging the order was
dismissed by High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G HELD: 1. The High Court should not have decided
such issues, as in the instant case, only on the ground
of lack of locus standi of the appellant to maintain the writ
application. She had the requisite locus standi. Her writ
application, thus, deserved consideration on merit. [Para (
H 63] [1552-G-H; 1553-A]
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1519
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
2. In absence of any statutory provisions in terms A
whereof the Corporation or for that matter any owner of
the land was required to issue no objection certificate, the
letter dated 15th October, 1996 cannot be said that it
amounts to a 'No Objection Certificate', which was
required to be obtained in terms of the statutory B
provisions. The Ward Officer was merely performing his
duties. He has no authority to grant a 'No Objection
Certificate' on behalf of the Corporation. What is meant
by such a no objection, should be considered from the
point of view that the Municipal Corporation, as a
planning authority at the relevant point of time gave its C
consent to carry out the rehabilitation project. [Paras 41,
42 and 48] [1544-G-H; 1545-A; 1546-E]
3.1. If the appellant was aware of the refusal on the
part of the Corporation to carry out its obligation under
the Scheme, i.e., to verify Annexure II, which for one · 0
reason or the other, had been refused to be carried out,
it was necessary for her to question the validity thereof.
The Corporation in its counter affidavit before this Court
and the Rehabilitation Authority also in its affidavit
categorically stated that the application of appellant for E
Annexure II was rejected on 31.8.2001, on the grounds
that the 44 slum dwellers on Plot No. 569 were already
included in Annexure II of respondent No. 6 and the same
has not been challenged by the petitioner. Appellant did
not traverse the said allegation that she had knowledge F
thereabout. Furthermore, it does not appear that any
contention, in regard to the interpretation of the said letter
dated 31st August, 2001 was advanced before the High
Court. The aforementioned averments also clearly show
that a specific stand had been taken both by the G
Corporation as also by the Authority that the scheme in
respect of 1081 sq. m. of plot No. 569 was not viable.
[Paras 51, 58, 59 and 60] [1550-E-F; 1551-E-G; 1552-A-C]
3.2. Interpretation that by reason of the letter dated
31.8.2001 only the Corporation has refused to verify the H
1520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A occupancy position for the purpose of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme and, thus, was not required to be
challenged, cannot be accepted. The authority was aware
of the said letter of the Ward Officer dated 15th October, -
1996. It was in that view of the matter, a request was made
8 to communicate as to whether there had been any other
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme pending for consideration
with reference to the Annexure U which had been issued
earlier by the Ward Officer, i.e., on 15th October, 1996. It
was in the aforementioned context, further verification
was required to be made. Consent, was given by the
C inhabitants of the slums in respect of the said 1081 sq.
m of land only. Their consent had not been obtained by
respondent No. 6. The schemes propounded by the
appellant and respondent No. 6 were different ones. Only -
a part of the scheme, viz., 1081 sq. m. of land was
D common. It was substantially different in material
particulars. In that view of the matter, it was necessary for
the appellant to.question the validity thereof. [Para 52]
[1548-D-H; 1549-A]
4. Annexure II may not have any statutory force but
E when guidelines were issued, an application for grant of
sanction for development of a slum area was required to
be in conformity with the said guidelines, unless the
same is found to be ultra vires. No law contrary to the
guidelines has been pointed out. [Para 53] [1549-A-B]
F 5. One of the grounds on which the appellant's
application was rejected was that Annexure I for Plot No.
569 (part) had not been supplied. In the original record
such an annexure had not been given. It was only in
respect of plot No. 559 and not for 569. Since the
G appellant did not annexe Annexure I in respect of plot No.
569 (part) along with her original application, there is no
legal infirmity in the authority's impugned order dated
28th June, 2006. [Paras 54 and 55] [1549-C-F; 1550-A-B] ('
6. If the scheme is final and binding upon everybody,
H merger of the plots is impermissible. Appellant does not
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1521
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
deny or dispute that having regard to the order passed •A
by the High Court in plot No. 559 was reserved for
recreational purposes, and, thus, the authority could not
have granted any permission for development of that
plot. Appellant being a developer was surely aware of the
aforementioned order of the High Court. Even if she did 8
not know thereabout, her contention that she was ready
and willing to develop the 1081 sq. m. occupied by the
chawls independently could not have been considered
by the Authority for more than one reason, firstly,
because such an application was not before the
authority; secondly, because her application was stated C
to be a composite application; and thirdly, because
another application in respect of the said land had
already been pending. [Para 61) [1552-C-F]
7.1. The authority having a statutory status should
have considered the application filed by the appellant at D
an early date. If the scheme was to be implemented with
sincerity as the policy decision professes, it was·
imperative for all the statutory authorities to take
appropriate action within a reasonable time. The.
- Municipal Corporation also does not appear to be correct: E
in its stand that Annexure-11 issued in favour of the
Respondent No.6 amounted to a 'No Objection Certificate',
f
and if that be so, the law as it then stood, the question of!
issuance of such certificate at that point of time so as to
bind it for all time to come evidently was not F
comprehended thereunder. In any view of the matter
such a 'No Objection Certificate' does not and cannot be
peJmitted to remain operative for a long time. It was in the
aforementioned backdrop that the authority also should-
have made all endeavours to dispose of the appellant's G
application forthwith. [Para 63) [1553-E-G]
7.2. As the appellant's application was defective and
'\ as the same could not have been taken into
consideration, the same could have been rejected at the
a. threshold. There is absolutely no reason as to why H
1522 SUPREME COURT ,REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A prompt action could not be taken by the authority. If a
person is not entitled to a relief he should be informed
thereabout at an early date so that if aggrieved thereby ',..t ..'
'
he can take recourse to the remedies available to him in
law. [Para 63] [1553-G-H ; 1554-A-B]
B Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari and Ors. v. Chief Executive
Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. 2006 (4) Mh.
L.J. 282 and Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 851, referred
to.
C Case Law Reference: ~.
2006 (4) Mh. L.J. 282 Referred to. Para 56
2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 861 Referred to. Para 56 .:..
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7435 of 2008.
D From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2006 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petitiori No.
2849 of 2006.
Shyam Diwan, Arvind V. Savant and Pravin H. Parekh,
AV. Rao, Prabhakar Parnam, Venkateswara Rao, Anumolu,
E Sanjay V. Kharde, Arvind S. Avhad, Chandan Ramamurthi,
•
Sameer Parekh,,E.R. Kumar (for Mis. Parekh & Co.) S.C. Birla
Subrat Birla, S.G. Surana, AP. Medh, D.N. Mishra, Sanjay V.
Kharde and Asha G. Nair for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave gr~nted.
1. In the Metropolitan Town of Mumbai there exist a large
- ,
number of Slums. 55 % population of Greater Bombay does
not have authorized shelter. Nearly 2525 hectares of lands in
G the City are under slums. l,,ands occupied by slums are allocated
for different users, and are designated, reserved or allotted for
various existing or proposed public purposes in the draft or final
revised Development·Plan of Greater Bombay.
2. For rehabilitation of the slum dwellers living in distress
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1523
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
the Legislature of Maharashtra enacted the Maharasht~a A
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the 1966 Act') in terms whereof respondent Nos. 2 and 4
are treated to be planning authorities as would appear from
Section 2(19) thereof.
3. Section 2(27) defines "regulation" to mean a regulation B
made under Section 159 of this Act and includes zoning,
special development control regulations and other regulations
made as a part of a Regional Plan, Development plan, or town
planning scheme.
I Grant or refusal of permission for development is governed C
by Section 45, which reads thus:-
"45. Grant or refusal of permission.
(1) On receipt of an application under section 44 the
Planning .Authority niay, subject to the provisions of this Act:
by order in writing ... D
(i) grant the permission, unconditionally;
(ii) grant the permission, subject to such general
or special condition as it may impose with
the previous approval of the State' E
- (iii)
Government; or
refuse the permission;
(2) Any permission granted under sub-section (1) with or,
without conditions shall be contained in a commencement
certificate in the prescribed form. F
(3) Every order granting permission subject to conditions,
or refusing permission shall state the grounds for imposing
such conditions or for such refusal.
(4) Every order under sub:-section (1) shall be
- communicated to the applicant in the manner prescribed
by regulations.
(5) If the Planning Authority does not communicate its
decision whether to grant or refuse permission to the
G
applicant within sixty days from the date of receipt of his
H
1524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A application, or within sixty days from the date of receipt of
reply from the applicant in respect of any requisition made
by the Planning Authority, whichever is later, such
permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the
applicant on the date immediately following the date of
B expiry of sixty days:
Provided that, the development proposal, for which
the permission was applied for, is strictly in conformity with
the requirements of all the relevant. Development Control
Regulations framed under this Act or bye-laws or
c regulations framed in this behalf under any law for the time
being in force and the same in no way violates either the
provisions of any draft or final plan or proposals published
by means of notice, submitted for sanction under this Act:
Provided further that any development carried out in
D pursuance of such deemed permission which is in
contravention of the provisions of the first proviso, shall be
deemed to be an unauthorized development for the
purposes of sections 52 to 57.
(6) The Planning Authority shall, within one month from the
E date of issue of commencement certificate, forward duly
authenticated copies of such certificate and the sanctioned
building or development plans to the~ollector concerned."
4. Indisputably all Planning Authorities are conferred with
power to make Regulations as envisaged under Section 159
F of the 1966 Act.
5. The State of Maharashtra also framed Regulations
known as Development Control Regulations for Greater
Bombay, 1991 (OCR). Relevant portion of Regulations 5(3) and
33(10), read :-
G "5. Procedure for obtaining Development Permission and
Commencement Certificate.
(3) Information accompanying notice. -
(i) Key plan, site plan, etc. to accompany notice. - /
The.notice shall be accompanied by the key plan
H (location plan), a site plan, sub-division/lay-out plan,
'I
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1525 ,
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
building plan, specifications and certificate of , A
supervision, ownership, title, etc. as prescribed in
clauses (ii) to (xiii) below.
(ii) Ownership title and area.- Every application for
development permission and commencement
certificate shall be accompanied by the following B
documents for verifying the ownership and area etc.
of the land :-
(a) attested copy or original sale/lease/power of '
attorney/enabling ownership document
wherever applicable." c
33(10). Rehabilitation of slum dwellers through owners/
developers/cooperative housing societies. -For
redevelopment or restructuring of censused slums or such
slums whose structures and in habilitants whose names
appear in the Legislative Assembly voters' list of 1985 by D
the owners/developers of the land on which such slums are ·
located or by Cooperative Housing Societies of such slum
dwellers a total floor space index of upto 2.5 may be
granted in accordance with schemes to be approved by
special permission of the Commissioner in each case. E
Each scheme shall provide inter-alia the size of tenements
to be provided to the slum dwellers, the cost at which they
are to be provided on the plot and additional tenements
which the owner/developer can provide to accommodate/
rehabilitate slum dwellers/project affected persons from
other areas etc. in accordance with the 'guidelines laid F
down in the Regulations in Appendix IV."
6. In terms of Regulation 33(10) of OCR, three annexures
were prescribed in Appendix IV.
7. Although all Planning and Development works were G
- covered under the aforesaid Act, however, with a view to make
better provision for the improvement and clearance of slum
areas in the State and their redevelopment and for the
protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants, the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
'H
1526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R.
A Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971
Act') .was enacted by the State of Maharashtra. We may notice
a few provisions thereof. · · y
Sections 2 (he) of the 1971 Act reads :-
"'Slum Rehabilitation Authority' means the Slum
B Rehabilitation Authority or Authorities appointed by the
State Government under Section 3A."·
Section 2(hd) of the 1971 Act reads :-
" 'Slum Rehabilitation scheme' means the Slum ..
Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section 38 "
c ~
8. Chapter I-A, however, was inserted by Maharashtra Act
4 of 1996 providing for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
!
9. Sections 3A ; 38 ; relevant part of 30 ; 3 K and 3V read
as under:-
D "3A.. Slum Rehabilitation Authority for implementing Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme :- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the foregoing provisions, th6 State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint an authority to be called the Slum Rehabilitation
,..._-
E Authority for such area or are~s as may be specified in
the notification; and different authorities may be appointed
for different areas.
(2) Every Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall consist of a
Chairman, a Chief Executiva Officer and fourteen other
F members, all of whom shall be appointed by the State
Government.
(2A) Every Slum Rehabilitation Authority appointed under
sub-section ( 1) shall be a body corporate by the name of
"The ..................... Slum Rehabilitation Authority" and shall
G have perpetual succession and common seal; with power
to contract, acquire, hold and dispose of property, both 11111
movable and immovable, and to do all things necessary
for the purposes of this Act, and may sue and be sued by ,.,.
I
its corporate name.
H (3) Ti1e powers duties and functions of the Slum
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1527
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Rehabilitation Authority shallbe, - A
(a) to survey and review E:'.xisting position regarding
·~ slum areas ;
(b) to formulate schemes for rehabilitation of slum
areas;
8
(c) to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
implemented;
(d) to do all such other acts and things as may ba
necessary for achieving the objects of rehabilitation
of slums. c
(4) The terms and conditions of appointment of the non-
official members of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall
be such as may be specified by the State Government.
(5) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority may appoint
Committees consisting of its members and experts to o
. facilitate its working and speedy implementation of the
scheme prepared under section 38."
"3B Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. - (1) the State
Government, or the Slum Rehabilitation Authority concerned
with the previous sanction of the State Government, shall E
prepare a gen9ra! Slum· Rehabilitation SchP-me for the
areas specified under sub-section (1) of section 3A, for
Rehabilitation of slums and hutment colonies in such
areas.
(2) The General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme prepared F
under sub-section ( 1) shall be published in the Official
Gazette, by the State Government or the concerned Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, as the case may be, as the
Provisional Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the area
specified under section 3A(1 ), for the information of general G
- public, inviting objections and suggestions, giving
reasonable period of not less than thirty days, for
submission of objections and suggestions, if any, in
respect of the said Scheme.
(3) The Chief Executive officer of the Slum Rehabilitation H
1528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A Authority shall consider the objections and suggestions, if
any, received within the specified period in respect of the
said Provisional Scheme and after considering the same,
and after carrying out such modifications as deemed fit or
necessary, finally publish the said scheme, with the 'L
B approval of the State Government or, as the same may be,
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in the Official Gazette, as
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
(4) The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme so notified under
sub-Section (3) shall, generally lay down the parameters
c for declaration of any area as the slum rehabilitation area
and indicate the manner in which rehabilitation of the area
declared as the slum rehabilitation area shall be carried
out. In particular, it shall provide for all or any of ttie following
matters, that is to say,-·
0 (a) the parameters or guidelines for declaration of an area
as the slum rehabilitation area;
(b) basic and essential parameters of development of slum
rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme;
(c) provision for obligatory participation of the landholders
E and occupants of the area declared as the slum
rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
in the implementation of the Scheme;
(d) provision relating to transit accommodation pending
development of the slum rehabilitation area and allotment
F of tenements on development to the occUpants. of such
area, free of cost.
(e) scheme for development of the slum rehabilitation areas
· under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by the landholders
and occupants by themselves or through a developer and
G the terms and conditions of such development; and the
option available to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for
taking up such development in the event of non-
participation of the landholders or occupants;
(f) provision regarding sanction of Floor Space Index and
H transfer of development rights; if any, to be made available
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1529
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
to the developer for development of the slum rehabilitation A
area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme;
.~ (g) provision regarding non-transferable nature of
tenements for a certain period, etc."
"30. Application of other Chapters of this Act to Slum
Rehabilitation Area with modification. - On publication of B
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under sub-section (1) of
section 38, the provisions of other Chapter of this Act shall
apply to any area declared as the slum rehabilitation area,
...
, subject to the following modifications, namely:-
II c
"3K. Power of State Government to issue directions. - (1)
The State Government may issue to the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority such general or special directions
as to policy as it may think necessary or expedient for
carrying out the purposes of this Act and the Slum D
Rehabilitation Authority shall be bound to follow and act
upon such directions.
-4 (2) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provision, if the State Government is of opinion that the
execution of any resolution or order of the Authority is in E
contravention of, or in excess of, the powers conferred by
or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,
or is likely to lead to abuse or misuse of or to cause waste
of the Fund of the Authority, the State Government may, in
the public interest, by order in writing, suspend the F.
~ execution of such resolution or order. A copy of such order
shall be sent forthwith by the State Government to the
Authority and its Chief Executive Officer.
(b) On receipt of the order sent as aforesaid, the Authority
shall be bound to follow and act upon such order." G
_, "3V. Power to make regulations. - The Slum Rehabilitation
Authority may make regulations consistent with this Act and
" the rules made thereunder for all or any of the matters to
be provided under this Act by regulation and generally for
H
1530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A all other matters for which provision is, in the opinion of
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority necessary for the exercise
of its powers and the discharge of its functions under this ,_;- .
Act."
10. In view of Section 3A Slum Rehabilitation Authority was
B appointed, which is a body corporate and having a perpetual
succession and common seal. Powers, duties and functions of
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority hae been laid down under the
said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 postulates preparation
of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme while sub-section (2) thereof •
c provides for its publication in the official Gazette. Sµch a "I
Scheme attains finality upon inviting objections and suggestions
and upon consideration of the same. Section 3C, however,
provides for declaration of slum rehabilitation areas which upon
publication in the official gazette is required to be given wide
publicity in the manner as may be specifically specified by the
D authority. Section 30 provides that on publication of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme the other provisions of the Act shall
apply to any area declared as the slum rehabilitation area
.,.._.
subject to modifications prescribed therein.
"I
Section 13 of the Act provides for power of Competent
E Authority to redevelop clearance area in the manner as stated
therein.
The State Government is empowered to issue directions
to the State Rehabilitation Authority in terms of Section 3K of
the Act. Section 3V empowers the State Rehabilitation Authority
F to make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act
and the rules made thereunder for all or any of the matters J. .
provided under the Act by regulations and for all other matters
for which provisions are, in the opinion of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, necessary for the exercise of its powers
G and the discharge of its function.
11. Concededly despite constitution of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority in the year 1977, no Regulations were /
framed by it. Policy guidelines, however, were being issued 1
i
from time to time keeping in view the aforementioned objective
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1531
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
by the State. The manner of re-development of existing slums A
occupying lands from residential commercial, industrial zones
and lands reserved/designated/allotted for various public
.~
purposes was divided into seven categories.
12. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, being one of the
Planning Authorities, had also issued circulars in respect of B
development plan of Greater Bombay for implementation of 1
lands allocated to the various users designated/reserved by
slums etc. One of such circulars is dated 13th October, 1992
I
.; whereby it was directed that all concerned should comply with
I
the requisitions prescribed in the said circular before forwarding c
the proposal for administrative and financial scrutiny for
obtaining the approval of the High Power Committee.
13. As stated earlier, in terms of DCR 33(10), annexures,
three in number, were prescribed in Appendix IV. Annexure-1
lays down the format for submitting the Scheme as per modified D
scheme. Annexure-11 provides for a certificate in respect of the '
persons residing in a slum within the purview of the said policy
decision. Annexure-111 provides for the details required to be
'> ~ furnished to assess the financial capability of the 'Developer'
to execute the SRA Scheme.
E
14. Appendix X of the DCR prescribes a Form of Notice
and the 'first application' required to be filed for development
in terms of Sections 44, 45, 58 and 69 of the 1966 Act and
erection of a building under Section 337 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 wherewith ownership
documents and property registered card were to be annexed. F
~ 15. The procedure for submission, processing and
approval of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, is as under:
"1. All slums and pavements-whose inhabitants' names and
structures appear in the electoral roll prepared with G
reference to 1-1-1995 or a date prior thereto and who are
actual occupants of the hutments are eligible for the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme.
; "" 2. 70% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum
or pavement in a viable stretch at one place have to show H
1532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A their willingness to join Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and
come together to form a cooperative housing society of
all eligible hutment-dwellers through a resolution to that y.
effect. The following resolution should be adopted:
(a) Resolution electing a chief promoter.
B (b) Resolution giving the chief promoter authority to apply
for reservation of name for cooperative housing society.
(c) To collect share capital (Rs 50 per member for slum
societies) and Re 1 as entrance fee and to open account
t-
in Mumbai District Central Cooperative/Maharashtra State
c Cooperative Bank Ltd. (any branch)
3. The chief promoter, office-bearers and the members of
the proposed Society should collect the documents such
' t
as 7/12 extract and the PR card of the plot on which the
slum is situate. They should then get the plot surveyed/
D measured and prepare map of the plot showing slum
structures therein with the help of surveyors attached to the
office of Additional Collector (Encroachment) or the Deputy
Collector (Encroachment) of the zone. ,.._.,,
4. While undertaking the survey, they should collect the
E information of the proposed members/slum-dwellers and
fill up land occupied by the slum-dwellers, number and type
of structures such as residential, industrial, commercial,
amenity structures, etc. and the list of eligible and ineligible
occupants and consent of the slum-dwellers to join the
F Scheme. Earlier the promoter/cooperative housing society
had to first approach the different competent authorities
),
namely Additional Collector for the slums on government
and private lands and the land-owning authorities for the
slums on different public authority lands, for obtaining
G certified Annexure II, before they could put in application
for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme to SRA. As a simplification
measure, this procedure is now discontinued and Annexure
II format is now required to be filled by the promoter/
cooperative housing society itself for submitting building
proposal to SRA, so that the scrutiny of the proposal and
f '1 i
H
~
I .,,,. PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1533
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
certification of Annexure II can start simultaneously. A
Annexure II needs to be submitted in duplicate. As a
.~ measure of further simplification, Additional Collector
(Encroachment) is being designated as the sole
competent authority for deciding eligibility and for taking
eviction action against non-participants in Slum B
Rehabilitation Schemes.
5. The chief promoter and the office-bearers of the
proposed society should then apply for name reservation
.~
of the proposed cooperative housing society along with th~
f self-prepared Annexure II and the required resolutions to c
the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. To
facilitate this, office of the Assistant Registrar has been
started in SRA itself. It is no longer necessary to approach
different offices of the Cooperation Department for this
purpose. The Assistant Registrar/SRA will issue a letter
reserving the name for the proposed cooperative housing D
society and permission to open a bank account in the
proposed society's name.
--. -+
6. While the above steps are being taken, the decision to
search a competent developer to act as a promoter has
to be taken up by the proposed cooperative housing E
society of slum-dwellers. The society itself or an NGO/
developer/owner can take up Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
as a promoter.
7. The promoter so chosen has to enter into an agreement
with every eligible slum-dweller while putting up slum F
~
rehabilitation proposal to SRA for approval. SRA is in the
process of trying to evolve standard formats for the
following four types of agreements required in the Scheme,
with the approval of the State Government.
(a) Consent-cum-agreement between the promoter and the G
slum-dwellers.
(b) Development rights/agreement to lease between the
' promoter and the land-owning authority.
(c) Lease agreement between the land-owning authority H
1534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS / [2008] 17 S.C.F...
A and the cooperative society of slum-dwellers.
(d) Lease agreement between the land-owning authority
and the cooperative society of freesale tenement buyers.
8. The promoter has also to appoint an architect in
consultation with the proposed cooperative housing
B society of slum-dwellers to prepare the plans of
development of the slum area as per DCR-33(10). It is
expected that the architect ensures community
participation in preparation of the building plans. All
required documents such as building plan, layout plan, PR
c card, etc. along with Annexure I, Annexure II and Annexure ' I
Ill are to be submitted to SRA by the architect along with
an application for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. A
checklist of all such documents required for submission is
available in SRA office.
D * * *
10. Annexure Ill is prescribed to assess the financial
capability of the promoter. The items contained in
Annexure Ill are self-explanatory. Keeping in view the
sensitivity of this information, it is kept strictly confidential
E by SRA.
11. After a pre-security by a designated engineer of SRA,
to ensure completeness of the proposal submitted, so far
as documents are concerned, proposals are accepted.
Then a computerised file number is allotted to the Scheme
F on payment of scrutiny fees which are charged at half (sic)
_ file number is allotted to the Scheme on payment of scrutiny )
fees which are charged at half the rate of the Municipal
Corporation's general buffeting permission fees. Upon
acceptance, the scrutiny of Annexures I, II and Ill start
G simultaneously in the Building Permission Wing, Eligibility
Certification Wing and Accounts & Finance Wing
respectively."
,,.
16. Indisputably the matter relating to development and (
redsvelopment of slums used to be carried out by an Authority
H known as Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The constitution of the
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1535
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Committee was dependent on the fact as to who was owner A
of the land.
17. On or about 27th August, 2001 Slum Rehabilitation
Authority issued a circular in terms whereof Architect/Developer
or Office Bearer of the Society themselves were authorized to
fill up Annexure-11. But it was subject to scrutiny by the competent B
authority. However, approval was to be granted only upon
receipt of certified copy of Annexure-11 from the competent
authority.
18. We have noticed hereinbefore that an application for
redevelopment of the slum areas could be filed by an owner of c
t
the land, non-governmental organization, a cooperative society
of the slum dwellers and/or a developer. Appellant herein is a
developer while respondent No.6 is a proposed Cooperative-
Group Housing Society. Both were entitled to file applications
for development scheme of the slum areas. In terms of the D
provisions of 1966 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder
Final Plot Nos. 559 and 569 were demarcated. Both the said
Final Plots were, however, tenanted or encroached.
~f 19. On or about 21st October, 1978 an order/Notification
was passed/issued under Section 3(a) of the Slum E
Development Act declaring the said F.P. No.559 as a Slum
Land. Under the Development Plan for City of Mumbai the said
plot was proposed to be reserved for recreation ground which
was later confirmed in the year 1992 in terms of the final
development plan.
F
20. Appellant claimed ownership of plot No.559 of Town
Planning Scheme IV of Mahim Division admeasuring 5274.30
sq. mts. Out of which 1242.30 sq. mtrs. of land was acquired
by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. No
compensation is said to have been paid for the said acquisition.
G
21. F. Plot No.569, however, admeasures 9702 sq. mts. .. I
Indisputably in the year 1995 respondent No.6 filed an
application for development of a part of Plot No.569 measuring
3205 sq. mtrs. of land. On 15th October, 1996 the Bombay
Municipal Corporation granted a 'no objection certificate' in its
H
1536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A favour in requisite form i.e. Annexure-11 in respect of F. Plot >
No.569 admeasuring 3205 sq. mtrs. including the four chawl
which were known as Dholkwala Chawl. It gave all the y-,
particulars of eligible Slum dwellers and had granted consent
to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
B 22. The plans submitted by the appellant as also the 6th
respondent cover an area of 1081 sq. mtrs. carved out of Final
Plot No.569. Scheme of the appellant was in respect of her F.
Plot No.559 and 1081 sq. mtrs. of land from F. Plot No. 569.
23. Appellant also filed an application and obtained a 'no
C objection certificate in respect of F. Plot No. 559.
24. Indisputably on receipt of the said ~·P,plication, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority called upon Bombay Municipal
Corporation to clarify whether a certificate as envisaged under
Annexure-11 in respect of 32 dwellers of Dholkawala Chawl
D could be issued. Bombay Municipal Corporation rejected the
said proposal stating that it had already issued Annexure-11 in
favour of respondent No.6 and all the 32 names had been
appearing therein. Indisputably a copy thereof had not been
forwarded to the appellant which1 as would be noticed
E hereinafter, will have some bearing.
25. Indisputably again a composite building plan in favour
of respondent No.6 was approved on 2nd July, 2005. They were
directed to carry out construction activities.
26. Thereafter only appellant filed a writ application before
F the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was marked as
WP No.397 of 2006 inter alia for directions and/or orders to
)
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider her proposal, in
accordance with law, for sanctioning the Slum Scheme or
issuance of the Letter of Intent or a Commencement Certificate .
..
G 27. A Division Bench of the High Court by reason of an
order dated 29th March, 2006 passed in presence of counsel
for the parties thereto, directed the Authority to hear all the
parties including respondent No.6 herein and to pass
appropriate orders as per law. No interim order was passed
H despite the fact that by that time construction of the building had
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1537
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
'
already commenced. A
28. A petition for grant of special leave was filed in April,
...-~ 2006 against the order dated 29th March, 2006 which was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11th May, 2006
permitting the appellant to obtain interim protection from the
High Court. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observation, B
the appellant again filed a writ petition before the Bombay High
Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1473 of 2006 for grant of an
interim relief. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed
by an order 22nd June, 2006 recording the statement made
"
-f by the Authority that a final order on the appellant's application
would be passed within seven days.
c
29. The Slum Development Authority passed the
impugned order dated 28th June, 2006 inter alia on the
following grounds :-
(a) The Petitioner has submitted 1\nnexure-1 of FP D
No.559 only and not of FP No.569 (Part).
(b) Petitioner's Annexure-111 was not certified by
Financial Controller, SRA.
(c) Petitioner submitted photocopy of Annexure-11 dated
15.1 O.was 1996, actually issued to Bhavani CHS- E
Respondent No.6 in respect of larger area
admeasuring 3205.43 sq. mts. out of FP No.569
(Part).
(d) Asstt. Municipal Commissioner by letter dated
31.08.2001 informed SRA that fresh Annexure-11 F
\ could not be issued in favour of Petitioner qua
1081 sq. mtrs. of FP No.569.
(e) SRA has already approved Slum Scheme on FP
No.569 (Part), admeasuring 3205.43 sq. mtrs.
G1
., including an area of 1081 sq. mtrs. of 32 structures
of Dholakwala Chawl."
--, 30. Questioning the legality of the said order, the appellant
filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay on 19th October, 2006 which was marked as WP
H
r-
I
1538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A No.2849 of 2006. In the said writ petition, it was contended that
the p·urported reasons assigned by the Authority were
extraneous and not germane for considering her application,
stating :-
"(i) As far as the composite proposal is concerned,
B without the portion of F.P. No. 55'9 which is under
R.G. Reservation which may or may not be
submitted for Slum Rehabilitation Authority in view
of a Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court being
Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002, the Respondents
c ought to have considered the Petitioner's proposal
for F.P. No.569 en~irely and sanctioned the same.
(ii) The Petitioner has submitted Annexure I with her
Architect's communication dated 12th March, 2001
for which there is an acknowledgment from the
o Respondents.
(iii) As far as Annexure II is concerned, the Municipal
Authorities were asked to issue a fresh Annexure
II by communications dated 8th August, 2001 and
10th August, 2001 to which the Municipal
E Authorities have replied on 31st August, 2001
saying that the portion of 1081 sq. meters is
separate identifiable portion for which the Petitioner
has su_bmitted proposal and therefore there is no
··necessity for issuing a fresh Annexure. Thus, this
objection in the order is also erroneous.
F
(iv) As regards the non-submission of Financial
Statement is concerned, this is factually incorrect )
and legally erroneous assertion in as much as on
5th April, 2002 the Petitioner had submitted the
Financial Statement with an unde_,r:tak-ing as well as
G the certificate from the Chartered Accountant. The
apparent groun·d-s therefore given by the
Respondents in the impugned order are imaginary
...
and non-existent." f ·"'
31. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1539
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.8. SINHA, J.]
writ application principally on the following grounds:- A'
(a) This is a proxy litigation between two developers;
-~
(b) SRA has already sanctioned Slum Scheme in
favour of Respondent No.6 ;
(c) It is not a fit case to interfere in the matter by the B
High Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution so far as the decision
taken by SRA in granting LOI in favour of
Respondent No.6 is concerned."
"+ 32. Principal contentions of Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned c
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, are:-
(i) That the High Court committed a serious error in
so far as it failed to take into consideration the
contentions of the appellant on merits of the matter
as the entire premise on the basis whereof the
D
impugned order dated 28th November, 2006 was
passed, was non existent.
(ii) The High Court despite noting and recording the
submissions of the appellant could not have
summarily rejected the writ petition at the threshold
E
without dealing therewith at all, particularly in view
of the fact that in the earlier writ petition a direction
was issued on Slum Rehabiliation Authority to pass
a speaking order.
(iii) That the grounds stated in the order of Slum
FI
Rehabilitation Authority were wholly untenable as :-
~
(a) Had the order of the SRA in respect of Plot
No.569 been made known to the appellant
she could not have filed a separate
application in respect of Plot No. 569.
G'
.,.. (b) Appellant having furnished all the details in
regard to her financial capacity and, thus, non
issuance of the financial certificate was an
.... ~
internal matter of the Authority, whereover the
appellant had no control.
H
1540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A (c) ·The purported 'no objection certificate'
granted in favour of respondent No.6 should
not have been found the basis for rejecting r~
the appellant's claim as:-
* the same did not create any monopoly in
B its favour;'
* it should not have been kept alive for an
indefinite period;
*such a 'no objection certificate' did not have
any statutory force; and
..
c * the date on which the scrutiny fee was paid
~
should
. have been
. considered to be the cut
off date for the purpose of considering the
respective applications for grant of letters of
intent.
D
(iv) The letter of intent granted in favour of respondent
No.6 was violative of the guidelines issued by the
Authority itself which, it was bound to follow.
33. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand
E
contended: .,
(i) Bombay Municipal Corporation being the owner of
the land had a role to play and as 'no objection
certificate' had been granted in favour of
respondent No.6, which having not been withdrawn,
F
remained valid. ~
)
(ii) A composite Scheme both in respect of Plot Nos.
. 559 and 569 was not maintainable as the same
would be contrary to the Town Planning Scheme of
1973 which has a statutory force.
G
(iii) The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme must cover either
whole plot or part of the plot but a scheme on two
....
plots was legally impermissible.
(.
(iv) Consent of Bombay Municipal Corporation having
H not been sought for and only a query having been
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1541
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
made which was duly replied, it was not legally A
permissible for the Authority to allow the application
of the appellant.
34. Mr. Arvind V. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.4 and 5, would submit:
B I
(i) That no objection certificate having been refused by
the Bombay Municipal Corporation in terms of its
letter dated 31st August, 2001 in reply to the
Authority's letter dated 10th August, 2001, which
having not been challenged, the impugned order
should not be interfered with. c
(ii) In terms of Sections 3A; 30 ; 3K and ; 3 V of the
1971 Act the State and the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, in absence of any Regulation, were
entitled to issue circulars/policy decisions and
guidelines from time to time. D
(iii) The copy of the application produced by the
appellant before this Court being not the same, and
furthermore, as from the records it would appear
that the requisite annexure being Annexure II, having
been furnished only in respect of final plot No. 559 E
and not for No. 569, the appellant is not entitled to
any equitable relief being guilty of suppression of
fact and/ or misleading the court. As in some
correspondences both plot Nos. 559 and 569 (part)
have been mentioned, her application for both the F
plots was incomplete.
(iv) Appellant, as would appear from paragraphs 2.22
and 2.23 of her writ application, was aware of the
letter issued by the Municipal Corporation dated
31st August, 2001 and hence she is estopped and G
precluded from contending that she was not aware
thereof.
(v) In view of the decision of a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari and
o'thers v. Chief Executive Officer, Slum H
....
\
1542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A Rehabilitation Authority and Others [2006 (4) Mh.
L.J. 282] which has been upheld by a Full Bench
of the said Court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
r,
[2007 (6) Mh. L.J. 851], the authority cannot be said
B to have committed any illegality in proceeding on
the premise that unless the application of the
respondent No. 6 was disposed of, no other or
further application can be entertained.
(vi) The State government having laid down the .,.
c scheme which may not have the force of statute, the ..,
procedures laid down therein were required to be
followed.
35. Mr. Mukul Hohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.6 would contend:
D (i) Appellant being not the sole owner even of F. Plot
No. 559 nor any consent of the Corporation having
been taken, the writ petition should have been
dismissed in limine as the premise on which the
same was filed was false. ~ ..
E (ii) The 1971 Act itself contemplates consent of the
owner and in the event the same is not given , his
right has to be acquired in terms of Section 14 of
the Act and in that view of the matter, the appellant
has no locus standi to file application without the
F consent of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
(iii) All the persons living in the chawls have since given
their consent in favour of respondent No.6 and they )
being in the transit camp for more than three years,
this Court should not interfere with the impugned
G judgment.
(iv) Huge construction having come up and the FSI
~
available in respect of 1081 sq. meters having
already been consumed, no further area is
available for construction of any building at present. (
H 36. Mr. Pravin H. Parekh learned senior counsel appearing
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1543
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
on behalf of the impleaded respondent would urge:- A
(i) The application required to be filed being only in
respect of 1081 sq. meters which having not been
complied with by the appellant, the same had rightly
been rejected by the Authority.
(ii) Appellant herself having filed the application in ~
respect of Final Plot No. 559 in the year 1994 and
having not taken any step to raise constructions for
a long time is estopped and precluded from
contending that respondent No.6 should have taken
steps to raise construction after obtaining no C
objection certificate from the Bombay Municipal
Corporation in 1996.
(iii) Assuming that the said no objection certificate of
1996 could not have been given effect to, in view
of the fact that the respective applications ,filed by Q·
the applicant and respondent No.6 being for
different areas and contained different schemes,
the Authority cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily
or unfairly.
37. Appellant indisputably filed a composite application for E
development of a slum area, that is, both for plot No. 559, of
which she is said to be the owner, and plot No. 569 (part).
38. Contention of Mr. Rohtagi that she has made incorrect
averments as regards ownership of plot No. 559 in her writ
application as the sale deed executed in respect of the said ~
plot being in the name of Subhash Venkatrao Rajurkar, Asgarali
Abdulhusain Jariwal and Roshan Meher Singh son of the
appellant is not of much significance. It is true that her son was
a co-owner along with two others. However, the co-owners, viz.,
Subhash Venkatrao Rajurkar and Asgarali Abdulhusain Jariwal G
by affirming affidavits declared that the said property in its
entfrety belonged to the appellant as a sole and absolute owner.
What would be the legal position in regard thereto is a question
which need not be gone into by us herein. We are not dealing
with a suit relating to declaration of title. The said Subhash H
1544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A Venkat~ao Rajurkar and Asgarali Abdulhusain Jariwal have not
filed any suit. They have not denied or disputed the title of the
appellant. Suffice it to say that the title of the appellant has been ,..-;-
accepted by the authority as it in its impugned order dated 28th
June, 2006 expressly recorded that she is the owner of final
B plot No. 559 "as per entries in the Survey Register of Island
City of Mumbai". Appellant has also been shown to be the >-
owner in the property for final plot No. 559 maintained by the
Superintendent of the Land Records.
39. For the purpose of determining the said question, the
.,.,
\_
'
c appellant must be held to have disclosed the entire facts with ~
sufficient particulars in the manner in which she claimed herself
to be the owner thereof in paragraphs 2.5, 2.6, 2.11 and 2.12
thereof. Pleadings, as is well known, must be read as a whole.
In any event, the absence of title or non-ownership is not a
ground on which the appellant's application was rejected by the
D
Authority or by the High Court.
40. Contention of Mr. Naphade that the owner of a plot .-
even in terms of the slum rehabilitation scheme vis-a-vis
Development Control Regulations (DCR) has a say in the .. ~-
matter is not necessary to be determined finally. Prima facie, ·-
'E
however, the scheme does not say so. It is also difficult to
J,
pronounce finally upon the question as to whether Regulation
5(3) read with Regulation 33(10) in a situation of this nature
would be attracted.
41. Regulation 5(3) is a general provision which mandates
F disclosure of ownership in regard to the plot on which ..;
permission for development is sought for. It is possible to ) ·--·
contend that the slum development scheme, however, stands
on a different footing. Even assuming that it was obligatory on
•
the part of the authority to insist upon a no objection certificate ~
G from the owner of the land in re$pect whereof our attention has
not been drawn to any statutory provision, the letter dated 15th _,..
October, 1996 cannot be said to be a no objection certificate. \.-
The said certificate has been issued by a Ward Officer. It has
not been shown that the Ward Officer was competent to issue
f
H such a certificate.
......
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1545
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
42. In absence of any statutory provisions in terms whereof A
the Corporation or for that matter any owner of the land was
required to issue no objection certificate, we do not find any
reason to arrive at a conclusion that the same amounts to a no
objection certificate which was required to be obtained in terms
of the statutory provisions. What is meant by such a no B
objection, in our opinion, should be considered from the point
of view that the BMC as a planning authority at the relevant
point of time gave its consent to carry out the rehabilitation
. project. If there was any impediment whether statutory or
t otherwise, it was entitled to raise an objection in regard thereto
as for example, provision for sewarage was to be maintained
c
therefrom.
43. Regulations provide for exemption from compliance
with various other requirements such as mandatory open
spaces, dimension of structure, etc. Regulation 33(10) which
is applicable to such a scheme does not require that an 0
appl.ication for development of a plot must be accompanied by
documents verifying the ownership of the plot, as the key
;
requirement thereof is consent of 70% of the eligible slum
dwellers who may be rank encroachers.
44. Unlike Appendix X, Annexure I does not require e
production of documents of ownership of the title. What is
required is disclosure as regards the identity of the owner of
the property as per property records maintained by the City
Survey Office. Even deed of lease is required to be executed
within a period of sixty days as would appear from Para 1.11 F
of Appendix IV.
45. Submission of Mr. Diwan that Section 14 of the Act
providing for acquisition of land may not be held to be
applicable in relation to a slum development scheme need not
go into. A larger question, viz., whether by reason of the G
circulars issued by the State Development Authority which
admittedly do not have the force of the statutes, a valuable
--- ...... constitutional right of property, as adumbrated under Article
300A of the Constitution of India can be taken away, would have
to necessarily be gone into therefor. Validity of a circular or H
1546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2008] 17 S.C.R.
A scheme providing for grant of a mandatory lease by the owner
of a land for a period of thirty years may have to be considered
in the light of the constitutional scheme in an appropriate case.
46. Such a provision, however, ex facie appears to be a
mandatory one. The owner has no choice. He does not make
B an option. If for obtaining owner's consent, no provision exists,
keeping in view the fact that the 1971 Act and the scheme
applied to the entire State of Maharashtra, the legality of
Regulation 5(3) only in respect of the Greater Bombay, may
have to be considered. However, as at present advised, we
c need not pronounce our opinion in this case.
47. The certificate dated 15th October, 1996 (Annexure II)
was, as noticed hereinbefore, issued by a Ward Officer, which
reads as under:
.
I
'
"Hence, as far as G/North Ward Office is concerned, there
D is no objection to permit the redevelopment of the portion
occupied by the locality known as Nikamwadi,
Dholakawala Chawl and part of Buddha Christianwadi at
T.P. Reserved Final Plot No. 569 T.P.S. IV (M) after fulfilling
the Town Planning/ Development Plan reservation~"
\. .
E 48.The Ward Officer was merely performing his duties. He
has no authority to grant a no objection certificate on behalf of
the Corporation. At least no provision in relation thereto has
been brought to our notice. It merely contains a general
verification· of the eligibility of the occupants intended· to be
F covered by the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. This takes us to
the question as to whether 'it was obligatory on the part of the
appellant to challenge the validity of the order dated 31st J
August, 2001.
49. Contention of the appellant is _that ~~-~~,d=nQ.L.
G been communicated to her..~lt-m1ght-·nut have been
communicated to her, but whereas .there may be some
justification therefore. She did not refer thereto in her first and
second writ applitation, but, even in the third writ application,
she did so as would appear from the statements made in
H paragraphs 2.22 and 2.23.
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1547
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
letter dated 10th August, 2001, the relevant part whereof reads A
as under:
~
"Please find enclosed a copy of Slum Rehabilitation
Authority letter No. SRA/Eng/636/GN/PULOI, dtd 8/8/2001.
You have already issued Ann-II on the F.P. Nos. 569 (pt)
for 186 slum dwellers on 15/10/96 in favour of Bhavani B
CHS (P). However, Architect Subhash V. Rajurkar through
developer Smt. Pramila Singh has submitted S.R.
Scheme for the slum dwellers on F.P. No. 559 which
i.
includes 44 slum dwellers on F.P. No. 569 (Pt) which
" belongs to MCGM. These 44 slum dwellers have given c
consent in favour of the developer Smt. Pramila Singh. You
are therefore requested to consider issue of Ann - II in
respect of those 44 slum dwellers as early as possible .
. Dy. Collector
Slum Rehabilitation Authority D
Copy to the Executive Engineer, SRA (IV) with a request
to communicate whether there is any S.R. Scheme with
ref. to the Ann - II earlier issued by the Ward Officer on
15/10/96."
51. The Corporation in its letter dated 31st August, 2001 E
stated:
"Ref: No. SRA/297/EE/2001/Dy. Collr. dated 10.8.2001.
Sir,
With respect to above subject matter and reference, F
I have to inform you that this office has already forwarded
' Annexure II for Bhavani CHS (P) at F.P. No. 569(Pt.) to your
office on 15/10/1996. These occupants as stated in your
above reference letter were already accommodated in the
above proposed society. Hence issuing of fresh Annexure
G
II does not arise.
However, you may contact Chief Engineer (D.P.) City
~ for advise in .the matter please."
52. We would assume that in view of the purported
simplification of the procedure, such an annexure was required H
1548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.
A to be filed along with the application, subject of course to the
scrutiny thereof. It was required to be verified. It was refused
to be done on the plea that Annexure II had already been issued
in favour of the respondent No. 6 as far back on 15th October,
1996. Admittedly, whereas the application for development of
B slum area filed by the ·respondent No. 6 was in respect of a
part of Plot No. 569 admeasuring 3205 sq. mtrs. out of more
than nine thousand square feet, the application filed by the
appellant was a composite application both for plot Nos. 559
and 569 (part). Appellant herself contended that whereas 70%
of the inhabitants of the slum including the four chawls
C aforementioned hailed from the other part (i.e. part other than
area in question admeasuring 1081 sq. m.), the consent given
by the slum dwellers in her favour were the inhabitants of the
four chawls only. If the appellant was aware of the refusal on
the part of the Corporation to carry out its obligation under the
D Scheme, i.e., to verify Annexure II, which for one reason or the
other, had been refused to be carried out, in our opinion, it was
necessary for her to question the validity thereof.
Interpretation of Mr. Diwan that by reason of the said letter \
only the Corporation has refused to verify the occupancy
E position for the purpose of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and,
thus, was not required to be challenged, cannot be accepted.
The authority was aware of the said letter of the Ward Officer
dated 15th October, 1996. It was in that view of the matter, a
request was made to communicate as to whether there had
F been any other Slum Rehabilitation Scheme pending for
consideration with reference to the Annexure II which had been )
issued earlier by the Ward Officer, i.e., on 15th October, 1996.
It was in the aforementioned context further verification was
required to be made. Verification was, therefore, required to
G be made. Consent, as noticed hereinbefore, was given by the
inhabitants of the slums in respect of the said 1081 sq. m of
land only. Their consent had not been obtained by the
respondent No. 6. The schemes propounded by the appellant
and the respondent No. 6 were different ones. Only a part of
the scheme, viz., 1081 sq. m. of land was common. It was
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1549
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
substantially different in material particulars. In that view of the A.
matter, in our opinion, it was necessary for the appellant to
question the validity thereof.
53. Annexure II may not have any statutory force but when
guidelines were· issued, an application for grant of sanction for
development of a slum area was required to be in conformity B
with the said guidelines, unless the same is found to be ultra
vires. No law contrary to the guidelines has been pointed out
to us.
• 54. This leads to the question as to whether the appellant
;, filed Annexure I in respect of plot No. 569 (part). The document C
which has been filed before us being a copy of the application
shows that the appellant in her application dated 12th March,
2001 annexed Plan of F.P. 569 (Part) as Item No. 7 and
Annexure I for plot No. 569(Part). One of the grounds on which
the appellant's application was rejected was that Annexure I for 0
Plot No. 569 (part) had not been supplied. Before us the
original record had been produced. We have verified the same.
In the original, such an annexure had not been given. Even we
, have seen the requisite annexure. It was only in respect of plot
No. 559 and not for 569. Some explanation had been sought
to be offered that a copy was produced later on and in the office E
copy of the forwarding letter an endorsement had been made.
The items mentioned at Item Nos. 8 and 9 in the original
appeared after the words "thanking you". Ordinarily, they could
have formed part of the original application. Even otherwise
enclosure of such an annexure was not mentioned in the F
original letter. It is true that in various other documents annexed
~ with the said application, both the plots were mentioned.
Presumably, only on that basis, the officers of the authority in
their correspondences either with the appellant or with the
Corporation referred to both plot Nos. 559 and 569 (part) as G
would appear from their letters dated 8th August, 2001 and 10th
August, 2001.
\ 55. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in their
aforementioned letters both plot Nos. 559 and 569 had been
mentioned but it must have been done on the basis of the other H
1550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R
A documents available on the record and not on the basis of
Annexure II. It is not the case of the appellant that in fact a
separate Annexure II had been enclosed with another letter at
a different point of time. Prior to 8th August, no such statement
was made. We having satisfied ourselves that the appellant did
8 not annexe Annexure II in respect of plot No. 569 (part) along
with her original application, we do not find any legal infirmity
in the authority's impugned order dated 28th June, 2006.
-
56. ·We, therefore, although may accept the contention of
Mr. Diwan that the second reason assigned in support of the
c said order dated 28th June, 2006 that financial capability of the
appellant had not been certified by the Financial Controller of
the SRA as not correct, we have no other alternative but to
uphold the said order. In this view of the matter, it is not
necessary for us to consider other and further contentions raised
by the parties hereto including the observations made by the
D Division Bench of the High Court in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari
(supra) and Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
(supra).
57. Appellant in paragraph 2.16 of her writ application \
E referred to the permission of the Deputy Commissioner himself
to grant necessary sanction for retaining 1081 sq. m. of land
appurtenant to final plot No. 569 (part).
58. It is of some significance to note that the Corporation
in paragraph 8 of its counter affidavit before this Court and the
F Authority also in paragraph 3(c) of its affidavit in reply dated
7th May, 2007 categorically stated in regard to the legal effect
of the said communication dated 31st August, 2001. Paragraph
}
8 of the counter affidavit of the Corporation reads as under:
"8) I say that the petitioner further by her letter dated 1/8/
2001 claims the redevelopment of only part portion
G admeasuring 1081 sq. mtrs. of F.P. No. 569 and has
requested to issue N.O.C./Annexure for 44 Slum Dwellers.
The S.R.A. vide its letter dated 10.8.2001 requested the
Asst. Municipal Commissioner, G/North Ward to consider
the issue of those 44 slum dwellers on F.P. No. 569(part)
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKURv. STATE OF 1551
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
belonging to MCGM which are intended to be included in A
proposal on F.P. 559 submitted by the Petitioner. I say that
this Respondent had rejected the application of Petitioner
for Annexure II on 31.8.2001, on the grounds that these 44
slum dwellers on F.P. No. 569 belonging to MCGM are
already included in Annexure II of Bhavani Co-op. Housing B'
Society of F.P. No. 569(part), which is annexed at Exhibit
- 'P' page 82 of the writ petition No. 2849 of 2006 and it
appears that the same has not been challenged by the
,,. petitioner till this date. It is incidentally necessary to
mention that carving out the area of the 4 chawls situated
-I
on F.P. No. 569 would amount to sub division of F.P. No.
c
569."
59. Appei.lant did not traverse the said allegation that she
had knowledge thereabout. She merely raised legal contentions
stating:
D
"8. In reply to this paragraph it is respectfully submitted that
it is partly a matter of record and it is further submitted that
these respondents have wrongly rejected the request of the
SRA to issue Annexure - II in respect of the occupants of
the four chawls as the Annexure - II issued on 15.10.1996
was just a list of Slum Dwellers as the area covered under E
it was not declared as Slum. It is further submitted that the
contention of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 that carving out
the area of four chawls situated in F.P. 569 would amount
to sub division of F.P. NO. 569 is defeater by their own act
of sub dividing area admeasuring 3205 sq. meters in an F
odd shape out of the total area of 9702 sq. meters which
is the total area of F.P. 569. The Respondent No. 2 and 3
have been a party to such a Sub Division as per the
Annexure P-28 annexed with the reply to counter affidavit
of Respondent No. 6. It is further submitted that otherwise G
also in any case carving out the four chawls situated on
F.P. No. 569 would not amount to sub division because of
said four chawls are separate entity as other areas which
' separate names and entities as Jalanwadi, Budha
Christian Wadi, Ram & Shyam Wadi and Nikam Wadi
H
1552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A which are part of F. P. 569 and have segregated
themselves and are redevelop independently as per the
wishes of the occupants."
60. Furthermore, it does not appear that any contention,
as has been sought to be raised before us, in regard to the
B interpretation of the said letter dated 31st August, 2001 was
advanced before the High Court. The aforementioned
averments also clearly show that a specific stand had been
taken both by the Corporation as also by the Authority that the
c
scheme in respect of 1081 sq. m. of plot No. 569 was not
viable. Such a contention having although not been raised
before the High Court, this Court is not precluded from
-
considering the said question.
61. If the scheme is final and binding upon everybody,
merger of the plots is impermissible. Appellant does not deny
0 or dispute that having regard to the order passed by the High
Court in plot No. 559 was reserved for recreational purposes,
and, thus, the authority could not have granted any permission
for development of that plot. Appellant being a developer was
surely aware of the aforementioned order of the High Court.
E Even if she did not know thereabout, her contention that she
was ready and willing to develop the 1081 sq. m. occupied by
the chawls independently could not have been considered by
the Authority for more than one reason, firstly, because such an
application was not before the authority; secondly, because her
application was stated to be a composite application; and
F thirdly, because another application in respect of the said land
had already been pending.
62. For the reasons aforementioned, it is also not
necessary for us to consider as to whether in the
aforementioned situation, the appellant is entitled to any
G equitable relief vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
63. Before parting with the case, we must observe that we
agree with the submission of Mr. Diwan that in a case of this
nature, the High Court was required to go into the merit of the
matter and should not have decided such issues only on the
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1553
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] ...
ground of lack of locus standi of the appellant to maintain the A
writ application. She had the requisite locus standi. Her writ
application, thus, deserved consideration on merit but as we
~ have ourselves gone through the entire records and heard the
learned counsel for the parties at length, it is not necessary for
us to remit the matter to the High Court. B
Mr. Diwan is further correct in his submission that the
authority having a statutory status should have considered the
application filed by the appellant at an early date. We fail to
--'
understand that if the policy of the State as also the authority
was to see that slum dwellers should be rehabilitated and all c
~
modern facilities are made available to them so as to make
the city of Bombay a planned one, why the respondent No.G's
application was kept pending since 1995 and it was permitted
to deposit the scrutiny fee only in the year 2004, i.e., much after
the scrutiny fee deposited by the appellant. It is also beyond
our comprehension as to why no action had been taken against D
the respondent No.6 by the Municipal Authority for its inaction
for such a long time. If the scheme was to be implemented with
sincerity as the policy decision professes, it was imperative for
all the statutory authorities to take appropriate action within a
reasonable time. Keeping in view the fate of a large number E
of people, hanging for a long time at the hands of the statutory
authority, the same itself may be held to be unreasonable so
as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Municipal Corporation also does not appear to be correct
in its stand that Annexure-11 issued in favour of the Respondent F
.,,. No.6 amounted to a 'No Objection Certificate' and if that be so,
the law as it then stood, the question of issuance of such
certificate at that point of time so as to bind it for all time to
come evidently was not comprehended thereunder. In any view
of the matter such a no objection certificate does not and cannot
G
be permitted to remain operative for a long time. It was in the
... aforementioned backdrop that the authority also should have
made all endeavours to dispose of the appellant's application
.___, forthwith. As the appellant's application was defective as has
been found to be and as it has been contended that the same
H
...
1554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
A could no-t have been taken into consideration, we fail to
understand why the same could not have been rejected at the
threshold. There is absolutely no reason as to why prompt action
could not be taken by the authority. If a person is not entitled to
a relief he should be informed thereabout at an early date so
8 that if aggrieved thereby he can take recourse to the remedies
available to him in law.
We also fail to appreciate as to why in the earlier round of
litigation, the authority could not have explained its position so
that filing of the second and third writ petitions before the
.c Bombay High Court as also the SLP preferred before this Court
by the appellant could have been avoided. These acts of
omission and commission on the part of the planning authorities
clearly go to show that a well thought out regulation so as to
meet these contingencies is imperative. We hope and trust that
the authority shall bestow its serious consideration in framing
0 an appropriate regulation in terms of 1971 Act as expeditiously
as possible.
64. We, therefore, agree with the judgment of the High
Court, albeit for different reasons. Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
E
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "slum rehabilitation"Sign in to search