AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Not on board. Mentioned.
The petitioner nos.1 & 2 has moved a praecipe to inform this Court that by an order dated 22nd December 2023, the applicant has fraudulently i.e. without informing the Court about the previous orders of this Court including the order dated 31st October 2023 got an injunction from this Court. The order dated 31st October 2023 reads thus :-
“1. Today’s order follows our order of 18th October 2023 in relation to 278 structures on Plot No 10 and 696 slum structures on the subject plot. On 18th October 2023 in paragraphs 9 to 13 we made the following order:
“9. We come to two other aspects of the matter. The first of these is the clearance of 696 slum structures on the subject plot. This is the focus of prayer clause (c). Mr Patil will need instructions and we require an affidavit by 26th October 2023 limited to the purposes of setting out a proposed or estimated schedule for clearance of the 696 structures and the procedure that is proposed to be followed.
The remaining question as regards prayer clause (d) which is about transit accommodation to the 696 slum occupants, will be considered on the next date after we have some clarity from the SRA about its proposed clearance program.
The next item relates to paragraph 5 of our order of 26th July 2023. This related to 278 structures on Plot No. 10. These were to be cleared by the MCGM. We had indicated that the process should start by September 2023.
We require Mr Sakhare for the MCGM to take instructions and to place on affidavit the current status on site and how much further time will be required in the estimation of the officers of the MCGM. That affidavit, like the affidavit of the SRA for slum structures, is to be filed by 26th October 2023.
For these two aspects of the matter, i.e., the 696 slum structures and the 278 slum structures and any other remaining items, we will first take up this Interim Application again on Friday, 27th October 2023, high on board.”
Certain further directions are now required in respect of these two groups.
RE: 696 SLUM STRUCTURES:
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”) is now to complete the procedure for evacuating the 696 slum dwellers from the site to enable the project to proceed. To this end, certain directions with timelines are required. To outline broadly the structure of what is proposed, as a first step the developer must issue separate notices to all 696 slum dwellers demanding possession of their hutments against payment by the developer of 11 months rent in advance of Rs 15,000/- per month and execution of a Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement (“PAAA”). A timeline needs to be set for this. We anticipate that there will be those who do not willingly vacate. Those numbers are not yet known. The developer will be required to file a proposal with the SRA for its assistance to demolish the structures and clear the site of these 696 slum dwellers obviously in regard to those who have not vacated. Once this proposal is filed, the SRA will then have to follow its procedure in accordance with the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”) to issue notices inter alia under Sections 33 and 38 to the non cooperating slum dwellers on the same terms as indicated earlier. The SRA will have to give notices, afford a hearing and pass an order. We will be making a separate direction that against any such Sections 33/38 orders, any person aggrieved must apply by way of an Interim Application in this Court so that the project can be monitored. Then there will be an outer deadline for clearance of the site.
To provide the sequence, the developer’s notice must go to all slum dwellers by 22nd November 2023. The notice must specifically demand possession against:
(i) Collection of rent from the developer of Rs 15,000/- per month for 11 months in advance and
(ii) Execution of a PAAA with the eligible slum dwellers.
Compliance must be demanded by 4th December 2023.
We clarify that what the developer is required to pay as rent in advance is Rs 15,000/-per month for 11 months for both eligible and ineligible persons. Those who are eligible will thereafter be entitled to continued transit rent until possession of the Permanent Alternative Accommodation (‘PAA’) is given to them with an Occupation Certificate (“OC”) following the usual process (lottery, allotment, etc.).
By 8th December 2023, the developer must file a proposal with the SRA seeking demolition of these 696 slum dwellers structures or, at any rate for those who have not complied by 4th December 2023. The SRA will be required to render all assistance including necessary police assistance. The costs of any removal machinery and equipment will be borne by the developer and not by the SRA.
By 29th December 2023, the SRA must issue its notices under Sections 33/38 of the Slum Act to those of the 696 slum dwellers who have not handed over possession and it must demand possession by 8th January 2024 against payment of 11 months advance rent at Rs.15,000/- per month and execution by the developer with eligible slum dwellers of the PAAAs. This is a final opportunity and is provided as a fail-safe. It is not meant to permit any of the 696 slum dwellers to casually oppose the demand by the developer. Since eligibility is being decided, and since provision is made for payment of transit rent even to those who might be ineligible, and, further, given our direction for the execution of a PAAA with and for those who are eligible, the grounds for any opposition to the demand to vacate are necessarily extremely limited and narrow.
The SRA must complete the proceedings under Sections 33/38 in all respects by 2nd February 2024.
We expect that the site is to be completely cleared by 16tFebruaryry 2024.
SRA must take up the matter of deciding eligibility and finalizing the Annexure II expeditiously. Further directions will be issued later with a deadline to complete the Annexure II.
RE: 278 SLUM DWELLERS:
Here directions are required not only to the SRA but also to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) because they are involved in the survey, the issuance of an Annexure-II and then site clearance.
Mr Sakhare for the MCGM has taken instructions. What is pending is a biometric recording of the head of each family occupying slum structures, mapping and survey in respect of 278 slum structures. Although Mr Sakhare states that this will be completed within one month, having regard to the intervening public holidays and the fact that there are inevitably delays in such matters, we grant further time of six weeks i.e., till 15th December 2023 to complete this initial exercise.
After this, MCGM is required to intimate the details of the mapping and the survey to both SRA and the developers in regard to these 278 structures. This must be done by the MCGM by 29th December 2023.
By 5th December 2023 the developer must, similar to the previous directions, issue notices to all 278 slum dwellers demanding possession by 19th December 2023 against—
(i) the collection of rent for 11 months in advance at the rate of 15000/- per month (for both eligible and ineligible persons) and
(ii) execution of PAAAs with the eligible slum dwellers.
By 2nd February 2024, the developer must file a proposal with the SRA for removal of those who have not complied with the developer’s demand.
By 16th February 2024, the SRA will issue notices to the 278 slum dwellers under Sections 33/38 of the Slum Act calling upon these persons to deliver possession by 1st March 2024 and no later again on collection of 11 months rent in advance at Rs 15000/- per month (for both eligible and ineligible) and the execution by eligible persons of a PAAA with the developer. Obviously, continued transit rent is payable only to those who are found eligible.
By 15th March 2024, the SRA must conclude its proceedings under Sections 33/38 in regard to those who have not complied with the demand.
The site is to be fully cleared no later than by 29th March 2024.
This is a final opportunity and is provided as a fail-safe. It is not meant to permit any of the 696 slum dwellers to casually oppose the demand by the developer. Since eligibility is being decided, and since provision is made for payment of transit rent even to those who might be ineligible, and, further, given our direction for the execution of a PAAA with and for those who are eligible, the grounds for any opposition to the demand to vacate are necessarily extremely limited and narrow.
The SRA and, if necessary, the MCGM will provide all assistance including arranging for police protection. All costs of removal are to be borne by the developer.
In the meantime, there remains the question of the preparation of an Annexure-II by the MCGM. This need not wait for site clearance. Mr Sakhare states that this process of the Annexure-II can be completed within four months from the date of completion of the survey. The Annexure-II preparation must start immediately after 15th December 2023 and must conclude within 4 months thereafter i.e., by 16th April 2024.
In regard to any objections taken to orders under Sections 33/38, persons aggrieved are entitled to apply to this Court but only by way of an Interim Application in this Writ Petition. They are not permitted to move a Civil Court for reliefs and no Civil Court will entertain these grievances. We are required to make this order because this is a very large project, and several hundreds of other slum dwellers are affected by any delay. They have been awaiting development of their PAA units for a very long time. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, the notice under Sections 33/38 issued by the SRA must clearly mention this order and this direction. It must also be mentioned in any resultant order that the SRA passes under Sections 33/38 i.e., indicating that a person aggrieved may file an Interim Application but that has to be done in this Writ Petition alone.
RE: CIRCULAR DATED 1ST AUGUST 2023:
Mr Patil points out that a Circular has been issued by the SRA on 1st August 2023. This is Circular No 210. This Circular was brought to the notice of the First Court in Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) No 109 of 2019 along with several other PILs. This Circular inter alia notes that there are several cases of slum redevelopment where there are arrears of transit rent. The Circular there requires advance rent of two years and post-dated cheques for the remaining period of completion.
It is not possible to apply this Circular to the present project. The reasons are many. To begin with, this entire project is being actively monitored by this Court. We have ensured through a series of directions made over the last nearly a year that the project moves forward, and that transit rent is paid. Indeed, in this matter there was a delayed Annexure-II. Even that issue has been now satisfactorily addressed. There is not a single complaint of arrears of transit rent. Further, as we have noted in the directions above, what the developer is offering is to pay transit rent of Rs 15000/- per month for 11 months even to those who are ineligible thus putting the matter entirely outside the frame of the present Circular in question. Any fair reading of the Circular shows that it applies to a case where there is no Court monitoring or supervision as is being done in the present case and is meant to provide a safety margin or cushion for those affected by the slum redevelopment so that they are not left for months and years without transit rent. We do not see how this Circular can possibly be applied to the present situation. Mr Patil’s submission is noted and rejected.
RE: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO 29734 OF 2023
There is an Interim Application (L) No 29734 of 2023. It is filed apparently on behalf of some 67 persons. Prayer (a) of this Interim Application says that notices issued by the developer and annexed as Exhibits ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ be stayed. Those are typical notices demanding possession. No ground is made out for this relief. We do not know how these 67 persons can be singled out for preferential treatment. The second prayer more or less rejects itself. It seeks an order by way of an Interim Application in a Court which is effectively a mandamus against the Petitioner to pay additional transit rent amounting to Rs 22,000/- pm. We do not see how a set of applicants in Interim Application can seek a mandamus from a Writ Court against a private developer. Leaving that aside, we do not see how this Court can be expected to decide the amount of transit rent. But what is dispositive , to our minds, is that this demand of Rs 22,000/- per month would operate to create an on-ground inequity and inequality for these 67 applicants would then receive preferential benefits that are not available to several hundred other similarly situated persons.
The entire Interim Application is thoroughly misconceived. It is rejected. On the Interim Application, there will be no orders as to costs.
GENERAL
As we have been periodically monitoring the Writ Petition, the matter has already been scheduled on 30th November 2023, we will obtain a status update on that date.
Paragraph 5 of our order of 18th October 2023 is said to contain an error in regard to the CS Numbers to the property. That was because there was an error in the developer’s own document. A list of those numbers is annexed to this order and will hereafter be referred to as the project plots. Paragraph 5 will therefore be corrected to read as:
“Accordingly we direct Respondent No 9, the Superintendent of City Survey & Land Records Collector’s Office Mumbai City to issue fresh PR cards and Cadastral Survey Plans in favour of the MCGM in respect of the project plots mentioned in the Annexure to this order..
RE: AMENDED/REVISED LOI
Mr Patil states that the revised amended LOI will be issued as fast as possible subject to compliances and of course subject to the requirements that we have set out in today’s order read with the previous order of 18th October 2023. He states that it should be possible to issue the revised LOI by around 15th December 2023. We will obtain a status update thereafter.”
Mr.Rajesh Khobragade, Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Applicant had moved the application on the last date in Chambers at 4.40 p.m. without serving the application on the petitioner. This is apparent from the appearances which are shown in the order dated 22nd December 2023.
The petitioners’ Counsel submits that in view of this injunction, the entire project, for which the time lines were set in the previous orders, would be affected and thus the petitioners would incur huge liability on a daily basis. The petitioners therefore, seek that this order be vacated.
Faced with the above contention, the Advocate for the Applicant, on instructions, seeks to unconditionally withdraw this Interim Application.
The Advocate for the Applicant, however, for the record points out that in the Interim Application, they did mention about the previous orders, namely the order dated 31st October 2023 and thus, he submits that the Court was deemed to be aware about such order. He therefore, submits that he had not played fraud on the Court.
In view of withdrawal of this Interim Application, we see no reason to impose costs on the applicant. The application is thus, disposed of as unconditionally withdrawn with no order as to costs.
In view of withdrawal of this Interim Application, the order dated 22nd December 2023 would not survive.
Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.