Appellants challenged notice issued under Sections 33 and 38 of Slum Act requiring them to vacate premises for redevelopment under SRA scheme – Challenge on the ground that plot is a MHADA layout and only MHADA can redevelop it as per Regulation of DCR – Held that there is no force in the argument:
Held: The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) correctly held that this contention has no substance because the MHADA has consistently stated that the plot was never a MHADA layout – There is no landlord-tenant relationship between appellants and MHADA and appellants were paying transit fee and other service charges and not rent – Thus, there is no force in the appellants’ arguments that it is a MHADA layout to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(5) of DCR. [Para 11]
Notice based on earlier 2019 order affirmed by AGRC, which had attained finality – Appellants, though aware, failed to challenge AGRC order and instead raised identical issues belatedly before High Court – High Court rejected writ petition – Supreme Court upheld findings and dismissed appeal: Held: The competent authority issued the initial notice dated 28.01.2019 by which appellants were directed to vacate the premises within 15 days – Appellants filed an application before AGRC that was dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2019 that was never challenged before any forum – After four years, SRA issued the second notice against which appellant approached High Court without disclosing the earlier notice – There is no satisfactory explanation on behalf of the appellants as to why they never challenged the AGRC order [Paras 10-14]
Appellants, originally transit camp tenants and found ineligible under the Slum Act, employed dilatory tactics to stall redevelopment – Despite later being offered accommodation under the scheme, they rejected it, insisting on redevelopment under MHADA regulations to claim larger flats, a benefit not ordinarily available to slum dwellers. [Para 15]
Appellants’ contention that no notification has been issued under the Slum Act declaring it to be a slum area rejected – Land was a ‘censused slum’ since 1981 and therefore automatically covered under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR for redevelopment – No separate notification needed: Held: The project relates to a ‘censused slum’ and it is included in the definition of slums under Regulation 33(10) of DCR for the purpose of redevelopment – MHADA has submitted that it is their property, but it is not as MHADA layout and it has granted a No Objection Certificate to SRA for the redevelopment – If a slum is a ‘censused slum’ then it is already included in the definition of slums for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and no separate notification is required under the Slum Act. [Para 16] Survey revealed 2965 slum structures, of which 2625 were eligible for rehabilitation – Bharat Ekta Society, comprising 261 slum dwellers with over 70% consent, was found to be a bona fide society – Redevelopment project duly sanctioned and at an advanced stage – Appellants’ objections held untenable, especially as most had not even approached the High Court – They could not be allowed to derail the scheme meant for the benefit of numerous eligible slum dwellers – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 17-21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.). 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.