Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 – Disputed property vested in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGMrespondent no.2) – Appellants’ predecessor-in-interest submitted application to MCGM seeking lease of the said land and paid earnest money – Slum structures pre-existing on the said land – 1971 Act enacted – Said area entitled for redevelopment – Slum dwellers formed co-operative housing society (respondent no.4) – Slum rehabilitation of the said area approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) by issuing Letter of Intent (LoI) vide order dtd.16.06.1999 – Respondent no.4 appointed developer (respondent no.5) for implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme and build new flats – Writ petition filed before High Court, challenging order dtd.16.06.99 – Liberty to the appellants to file representation before the High Power Committee (HPC) – HPC vide order dtd. 20.06.09 directed SRA to pass orders on merits – SRA revalidated the LoI in favour of the respondent nos.4 &5– HPC vide order dtd. 05.02.11 set aside the said order – MCGM issued letter dtd. 17.01.15 withdrawing its earlier orders claimed as acceptance of the claim of appellants’ predecessor-in-interest as lessees – Appellants filed suit challenging letter dtd.17.01.15– Suit pending adjudication – Respondent nos.4&5 filed writ petition challenging order dtd 05.02.11 – High Court set aside the order dtd 05.02.11 allowing the respondents to proceed with the redevelopment – On appeal, held: At this stage of litigation, Court not inclined to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or to decide questions of law on merits which call for detailed scrutiny, as these issues are the subject matter of the trial – Adjudication of the dispute, presently before the Court has to be based on principles of equity – Very basis of the appellants’ right, i.e. the lease deed, is itself disputed as there exists no registered document to that effect– Appellants averred that their name appears in the Estate Department records as lessees– HPC’s order dtd. 20.06.09 declared the appellants to be lessees for 999 years – Said order not challenged by the respondents, it has now attained finality – This very issue is the subject matter of the pending civil suit– Refrained from making any observations regarding the same – Balance of convenience tilts in favour of the respondents, as the completion of the scheme is in greater public interest – However, appellants contend that they have paid consideration in exchange of the lease-hold right which is the subject matter of the trial – Appellants granted liberty to make such prayer, supported by relevant materials, before the trial court in the pending suit – Any observation made by the High Court affecting the merit of the matter, set aside – Not necessary to pass any orders in the Contempt Petition preferred by the appellants and the same is disposed of – Development Control Regulations – Regulation 33
(10) – Equity.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At this stage of litigation Court is not inclined to attempt to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or to decide questions of law on merits which call for elaborate arguments or detailed scrutiny, as these issues are the subject matter of the trial. The aforesaid contentions raised by the parties are to be resolved during the trial. The adjudication of the dispute has to be based on principles of equity. The party seeking the remedy has to make out a prima facie case on merits, and has to satisfy the court that there is some basis to its claim regarding the existence of his right. Further, the court must balance the comparative hardship or mischief which is likely to occur from withholding the relief, against that which would likely arise from granting it. It has to be further established that non-interference by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except to grant the relief sought. [Paras 22, 25] [465-A, B, D, E]
1.2 The very basis of the appellants’ right, i.e., the lease deed, is itself disputed as there exists no registered document to that effect. The appellants have taken the plea that by paying consideration towards the leasehold rights they now have a vested interest over the suit property. The appellants have averred that the name of the appellants appears in the records of the Estate Department as the lessees. Furthermore, the Court’s attention has been drawn to the fact that the first order of the HPC, dated 20.06.2009, declares the appellants to be lessees for 999 years. As the aforementioned order has not been challenged by the respondents, it has now attained finality. This very issue is the subject matter of the pending civil suit, making any observations regarding the same is being refrained. Slum Act is a beneficial legislation meant to ameliorate the poor condition of slum dwellers. The legislative purpose behind this enactment is to provide statutory protection to the rights of slum dwellers in furtherance of their fundamental right to shelter and other basic amenities, enabling them to lead a dignified life as reflected in the Constitution. As such, where the rights of the appellants need to be analysed in light of the Slum Act, it is necessary to balance the interests of the appellants with that of the slum dwellers. In the present case, the slum dwellers, who are the primary beneficiaries of the redevelopment scheme, are not only at risk of losing their shelter, but also their means of livelihood. Ultimately it is the slum dwellers who are suffering. There is nothing on record to show that they have the support of 70% of the slum dwellers as mandated by the statute. Moreover, the appellants can be adequately compensated in the event of their success in the trial and, as such, have failed to prove any irreparable injury which cannot be remedied. In a situation such as this, where rights of the parties have not yet crystalized, and no irreparable injury can accrue to the plaintiff pending trial, the entire case then revolves around the principles of comparative convenience. [Paras 27-29][466-B-G; 467-B, C]
1.3 The balance of convenience in the present case tilts in favour of the respondents, as the completion of the scheme is in greater public interest. The appellants have vehemently contended that they have paid consideration in exchange of the lease-hold right which is the subject matter of the trial. In order to substantiate their claim, the appellants have produced multiple documents on records, the genuineness of which is seriously doubted by the respondent authorities. The main grievance of the appellant’s is that in case they succeed in the trial, they may not be placed in a position to enjoy the benefits arising out of the suit property. Their interest can be protected only if respondent no. 5 (developer) is injuncted from disposing of 50% of the free saleable area. No material was produced so as to ascertain the quantum of damages that may have accrued to the appellants. Further, respondent no. 5 cannot be prohibited from disposing of the free saleable area, as it is only performing its contractual obligations and cannot be penalized for any irregularity committed by the respondent authorities. A specific averment has been made by respondent no. 2 that, in the event the appellants succeed before the trial court, they shall be entitled to adequate damages.[Paras 30-32][467-D-G]
1.4 The appellants are granted liberty to make such a prayer, supported by relevant materials, before the trial court in the pending suit. Further, the appellants are granted the liberty to implead necessary parties before the trial court. In view of the pending civil suit, any observation made by the High Court which affects the merit of the matter is hereby set aside. Any observations made herein shall not act in prejudice against the appellants during the trial on merits. It is not necessary to pass any orders in the Contempt Petition preferred by the appellants, which stands disposed of. [Paras 33-35][467-H; 468-A-C]
Balasaheb Arjun Torbole v. Administrator and
Divisional Commissioner (2015) 6 SCC 534 : [2015]
6 SCR 750 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.