Bombay High Court
Mahadeo Shankar Kurhade And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Gp High … on 4 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:15669
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.18995 OF 2024
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal & Ors. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1146 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.18995 OF 2024
Siddhivinayak SRA Co-operative
Housing Society Limited (Prop) ....Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal & Ors. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.615 OF 2025
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal & Ors. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.755 OF 2025
Meenakshi Yashavant Ambekar ....Petitioner
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Page No. 1 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.756 OF 2025
Shakuntala Laxman Bhoye ....Petitioner
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.36613 OF 2024
Manku Babu Choudhari & Ors. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.36614 OF 2024
Ratan Babu Chavan ....Petitioner
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.36615 OF 2024
Laxmi Nanu Dhodade since deceased
through heirs Sanjay Namu Dhodade & Anr. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.36616 OF 2024
Mahadeo Shankar Kurhade & Anr. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Page No. 2 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.36617 OF 2024
Dinesh Tukaram Kadav & Anr. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.36618 OF 2024
Parvati Shankar Mahale & Anr. ....Petitioners
:Versus:
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar i/by Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam, Ms. Sonali G. Sase,
Mr. Ashish A. Chavan, for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 18995 of 2024
and Writ Petition (Stamp) Nos.36613 of 2024, 36614 of 2024, 36615 of 2024,
36616 of 2024, 36617 of 2024, 36618 of 2024 and 615 of 2025.
Mr. Rajendra V. Kamble, for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 755 of
2025 and 756 of 2025.
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Sumanth Anchan, for the
Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.18995 of 2024, Writ Petition (Stamp) Nos.
and Writ Petition (Stamp) Nos.36613 of 2024, 36614 of 2024, 36615 of 2024,
36616 of 2024, 36617 of 2024, 36618 of 2024 & for Respondent No.8 in Writ
Petition (Stamp) No.615/2025.
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, for the
Respondents Nos.3 to 5-MMR SRA in Writ Petition No.18995 of 2024 and
Writ Petition (Stamp) Nos.36615 of 2024. 36616 of 2024, 36618 of 2024, 36614
of 2024, 36613 of 2024, 36617 of 2024 and 615 of 2025 and Respondent No. 3
in Writ Petition Nos. 755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/by Ms. Prachi Mulje, for the Respondent No. 12
in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 615/2025 and Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition
Nos. 755/2025 and 756/2025.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Abhijit M. Patil, for the
Respondent No.2-AGRC in Writ Petition No.18995 of 2024 and Writ Petition
(Stamp) Nos. 36615 of 2024, 36616 of 2024, 36618 of 2024, 36614 of 2024,
36613 of 2024, 36617 of 2024 and 615 of 2025.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Page No. 3 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved On : 21 March 2025.
Pronounced On : 4 April 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1) Petitioners claim themselves to be tribals and are opposing
implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the land occupied by
them. They have questioned the Notification declaring the land as Slum
Rehabilitation Area and are also aggrieved by orders directing their
eviction from structures occupied by them. Petitioners are thus
aggrieved by the action treating them as slum dwellers and desire
themselves to be treated as allottees/owners of land occupied by them.
Their opposition for implementation of slum scheme is thus premised on
their claim as allotees of land as tribals. If treated as other slum dwellers
most of the Petitioners are eligible to receive benefits of rehabilitation.
But they are opposing their comparison with other slum dwellers
contending that they are not mere encroachers, but are allottees of plots
of land as tribals.
A. THE CHALLENGE
2) The challenge raised in the group of these Petitions can be broadly
classified into three categories as under :
(i) Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 is filed by 13 Petitioners
involving a broader issue of challenge to the implementation
of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on land bearing
Page No. 4 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
Survey No.502/A. Petitioners therein had filed Appeal
before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) for
seeking exclusion of land admeasuring 3.39.0 Hectare at
Survey No.502/A from the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on
7 December 2022. In their Appeal they had also challenged
(a) Notification dated 27 October 2016 by which declaration
was made as Slum Rehabilitation Area in respect of the land
inter alia at Survey No.502/A, (b) Corrigendum to the said
Notification dated 30 May 2018, (c) Annexure-II in respect of
structure occupiers (d) Letter of Intent (LOI) dated
7 December 2022 and (e) all permissions granted for
implementation of SRS. The Appeal has been dismissed by
AGRC by order dated 12 March 2025, which is subject matter
of challenge in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025.
(ii) Writ Petition Nos. 755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025 challenge
eviction orders passed by the Competent Authority under
Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
(Slum Act) and the Order passed by AGRC dated
4 December 2024 confirming the same. The Petitioners in
these two petitions have also challenged the Notification
dated 27 October 2016 declaring the land bearing Survey No.
502/A as Slum Rehabilitation Area on the ground that it is
impermissible to implement slum scheme on a Gairan land.
(iii) The rest of the seven Petitions challenge eviction orders
passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 33 and
38 of the Slum Act and orders passed by AGRC dismissing
their Appeals by orders dated 4 December 2024.
Page No. 5 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC B. FACTS 3) Petitioners claim to be tribals, who are occupants of
structures on plot of land bearing Survey No.502/A (part) situated at
Village Panch Pakhadi, Taluka and District Thane, which admeasures
3.39.0 Hectare. The said land at Survey No.502/A was initially recorded
in revenue records as Gairan (Gurcharan) land. According to Petitioners in
Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025, the State Government had allotted
portion of lands individually in their favour by passing various orders in
the year 1949. That the said land was divided into plots of various sizes
and names of 22 Tribal persons were recorded in respect of said plots of
land. It is contended that the allotment of plots was for construction of
houses and that therefore orders were passed by the Collector on
27 March 1950 and 30 March 1950 granting permission for non-
agricultural use of the said plots of land. Reliance is placed by the said
Petitioners on Village Specimen No.2 Extracts issued by Talathi Village
Panch Pakhadi in which allotment of the plots in favour of
Petitioners/their ancestors has been evidenced. It is their case that
despite availability of such direct evidence of allotment of plots, names
of the concerned Petitioners were deliberately not recorded in the
revenue records by taking disadvantage of their social, educational and
financial background. That various representations were made by them
from time to time for recording of their names in pursuance of order
passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) in 1949 and by Collector in the
year 1950. That the concerned Petitioners approached Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission on 13 November 2007 complaining about
non-mutation of their names in the revenue records. The Human Rights
Commission issued notices to the Collector and during the course of
hearing before the Commission, a report was submitted by Collector on
Page No. 6 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
1 March 2008 thereby giving assurance to the Petitioners that their names
would be mutated in revenue records. Noting the said assurance and the
report, State Human Rights Commission closed the case on 3 March
2008. It is Petitioners’ case that towards implementation of the report
submitted before the Commission, the Collector called for report from
Tahsildar and Circle Officer, who submitted their reports, but no action
was taken for mutating the names of concerned Petitioners to the
revenue records in respect of the lands allotted in their names.
4) It appears that unauthorized slum structures mushroomed
on land bearing Survey No.502/A and other neighboring lands. Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) conducted site inspection/survey on
14 May 2015 with intention of declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
at the subject land. SRA issued public notice inviting suggestions and
objections on 3 June 2015 for declaring subject land as slum rehabilitation
area. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority had finalized and approved
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for Thane Municipal Corporation under
provisions of Section 3B(3) of the Slum Act, which was published in the
Official Gazette on 17 March 2016. CEO/SRA issued Notification under
Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act notifying inter alia land bearing Survey
No.502/A (Pt) admeasuring 33,900 square meters as Slum Rehabilitation
Area. By Corrigendum dated 30 May 2018 the area of one of the lands
bearing Survey No.83/4 (Pt) was rectified. Annexure-II was prepared on
6 May 2022 in respect of the structures on land at Survey No.502/A
where 1848 hutments were existing. SRA issued Letter of Intent (LOI) in
favour of Respondent No.6-Developer for implementation of SRS in
respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos.502/A (pt), 67, 83/4, 84/1 to 7
(Pt) totally admeasuring 41,527.35 square meters. Intimation of
Disapproval (IOD) for Rehab Building No.1 was issued on 7 June 2023.
Page No. 7 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 5) In pursuance of demand raised by some of the Petitioners,
CEO/SRA addressed a letter to Collector, Thane, on 12 January 2024
seeking information about alleged allotment, if any, in favour of tribal
persons and enquired about applicability of Sections 36 and 36A of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1960 (the Code) to the land. Tahsildar,
Thane issued letter dated 16 February 2024 to Collector, Thane, clarifying
that land bearing Survey No.502/A was never allotted to any tribal
persons and that therefore provisions of Sections 36 and 36A of the Code
were not applicable. In the meantime, Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.615 of 2025 filed representation before the Collector, Thane on
8 April 2024 requesting for recording of their names in the revenue
records based on orders passed by SDO, Thane in 1949, Collector, Thane
in 1950 and Human Rights Commission on 3 March 2008.
6) It appears that the Developer started implementation of SRS
by vacating various slum structures on the plots of the land. On
18 June 2024 the Developer addressed letter to the Petitioners for seeking
vacant possession of their respective structures. Revised LOI was issued
on 21 June 2024 thereby including certain additional portion of the land
in the scheme thereby increasing the area of land at 48,550.28 square
meters.
7) Since the Petitioners failed to handover possession of their
respective structures, Respondent No.6 approached the Competent
Authority and Deputy Collector for eviction of the Petitioners under
provisions of Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. On 31 July 2024, IOD
for Rehab Building Nos.2 and 3 and Sale Building Nos.1 to 5 was issued.
Further the commencement certificate for Rehab Building Nos.1 to 3 and
Sale Building Nos.1 to 5 upto plinth level was issued on
9 August 2024.
Page No. 8 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 8) In the above background Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.615 of 2025 filed Appeal No.57 of 2024 under Section 35 of the Slum
Act seeking exclusion of land admeasuring 3.39 Hectares at Survey
No.502/A from Letter of Intent dated 7 December 2022 and challenged
the said LOI dated 7 December 2022, Notification of declaration of Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme dated 27 October 2016, Corrigendum dated
30 May 2018 and all permissions issued in favour of Developer. On
24 September 2024 the Competent Authority passed orders under
provisions of Sections 33 and 38 of Slum Act directing Petitioners to
handover possession of their respective structures. On 27 September 2024
AGRC granted stay to the operation of LOI in Appeal No.57 of 2024.
Petitioners simultaneously filed Appeals before AGRC challenging
orders passed by Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the
Slum Act. On 7 October 2024 Competent Authority issued 48 hours
eviction notice directing Petitioners to handover possession of their
respective structures. Aggrieved by the said 48 hours notices, Petitioners
filed various Petitions in this Court complaining that eviction orders
could not be implemented during pendency of Appeals preferred by
them before AGRC challenging orders passed under Sections 33 and 38
of the Slum Act. This Court disposed of the said Petitions by order dated
14 October 2024 requesting AGRC to decide the Appeals expeditiously
and directing that any adverse order passed against the Petitioners
should not be implemented for a period of two weeks. On
13 December 2024, AGRC vacated the stay granted vide order dated
27 September 2024 in Appeal filed by Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.615 of 2025 challenging the LOI. Aggrieved by vacation of the interim
order dated 13 December 2024, Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 is
filed by 13 Petitioners.
Page No. 9 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 9) In the meantime, AGRC dismissed Appeals preferred by
Petitioners on 4 December 2024 in which orders of eviction under
Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act were challenged. Aggrieved by
dismissal of their Appeals by order dated 4 December 2024 balance 9
Petitions are filed.
10) During the course of hearing of all the Petitions, this Court
directed conduct of survey of structures occupied by Petitioners and
other similarly situated tribals by the Engineer of SRA by recording
names of occupants and area of structures in their respective possession.
Accordingly, the survey has been conducted by SRA and report of the
survey has been filed on record.
11) By further order passed by this Court on 24 February 2025
AGRC was requested to decide Appeal No.57 of 2024 filed by Petitioners
in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 in which LOI, Notification dated
27 October 2016, Annexure-II and all permissions were challenged. By
order dated 12 March 2025, AGRC has dismissed Appeal No.57 of 2024.
Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 was permitted to be amended by
order dated 18 March 2025 to set up a challenge to AGRC’s order dated
12 March 2025. This is how order passed by AGRC on 12 March 2025 is
also made subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of
2025.
12) In the above factual background, these 10 petitions have
been filed challenging orders passed by AGRC on 4 December 2024 and
12 March 2025.
Page No. 10 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC C. SUBMISSIONS 13) Mr. Nargolkar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners
in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025, Writ Petition No.18995 of 2024,
Writ Petition (Stamp) Nos.36613 of 2024, 36614 of 2024, 36615 of 2024,
36616 of 2024, 36617 of 2024 and 36618 of 2024 would submit that the
AGRC has grossly erred in dismissing Appeal No.57 of 2024 filed by
Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025. He would submit
that the AGRC has completely failed to appreciate the fundamental
position in law that the very Notification dated 27 October 2016 issued by
SRA under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act declaring land bearing Survey
No.502/A (part) as slum rehabilitation area is ab initio void and issued in
total ignorance of the fact that Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615
of 2025 and others similarly situated tribals (total 34 in number) are
actually allottees and owners of plots of land allotted to them. That the
land is erroneously declared as slum rehabilitation area under illegal
assumption that the same is owned by State of Maharashtra. That the
Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 had produced
voluminous documents in favour of their claim of allotment of lands and
occupation of houses by them which are constructed on such allotted
lands. That the said Petitioners are erroneously treated as unauthorized
occupants when in fact they are lawful occupiers and owners of land
allotted to them. That the said Petitioners are erroneously mixed up with
other slum dwellers ignoring the position that they are valid holders of
land in their capacity as tribals. He would submit that the Developer is
taking undue advantage of the position of names of the said Petitioners
not being mutated to the revenue records for the purpose of illegal
conversion of Gairan land into ordinary land belonging to State
Government for implementation of SRS. He would submit that
Page No. 11 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
Petitioners have been taking repeated efforts for ensuring mutation of
their names to the plots of lands. He would take me through the
proceedings initiated before Human Rights Commission as well as
orders passed therein to illustrate as to how assurance was given by the
Collector for recording names of those Petitioners in the revenue records.
He would submit that if the said assurances were to be fulfilled, names of
Petitioners would have been reflected in the revenue records thereby
excluding the plots of land allotted in the name of said Petitioners from
being included in the Notification dated 27 October 2016. He would
therefore submit that the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of
2025 had rightly prayed for exclusion of land allotted to them from
Notification dated 27 October 2016, LOI dated 7 December 2022,
Annexure-II dated 6 May 2022 and all permissions granted in favour of
the Developer. He would submit that slum scheme cannot be
implemented on land owned by the said Petitioners against their wish.
He would submit that this is a classic case of valid holders of lands being
illegally treated as slum dwellers and instead of letting them exploit their
ownership and occupancy rights in respect of respective plots, they are
called upon to submit documents of eligibility for being declared as
eligible slum dwellers for allotment of tiny residential units in rehab
portion of the building.
14) Mr. Nargolkar would strenuously rely upon copies of Village
Specimen No.2 issued by Talathi of Village Panch Pakhadi on
4 September 1996 to demonstrate that out of Gairan land bearing Survey
No.502/A various plots were allotted to the Petitioners/their ancestors in
Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025. To illustrate, he would submit that
the said village Specimen No.2 refers to details of allotment orders
passed by the Collector on 27 March 1950 and 30 March 1950. He would
Page No. 12 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
submit that the said village Specimen No.2 standing in the name of the
Petitioners cannot be ignored altogether as the same is maintained by
Revenue Authorities. That what remained to be done was to merely
prepare separate 7/12 extracts for mutation of names of Petitioners in
respect of the area of plots allotted to each of them. He would submit
that the father of Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025
Shri Laxman Bendu Ghamale was allotted plot No.12 admeasuring 195
square var of land and instead of recognizing entitlement of the said
Petitioner to exploit his rights qua the said plot, he is being treated as a
slum dweller for the purpose of being allotted a rehab tenement on par
with other unauthorized slum dwellers, that too after proving his
eligibility.
15) Mr. Nargolkar would take me through various documents
such as electricity bills, receipt of payment of non-agricultural tax,
Municipal Corporation Assessment, receipt of water supply, special
notice for Municipal Assessment etc. in support of his contention that
Petitioners of Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 can, by no stretch of
imagination, be treated as mere slum dwellers. He would particularly
highlight the receipt of payment of water charges by the then Thane
Municipal Council (before formation of Thane Municipal Corporation) in
the name of father of Petitioner No.1 issued in the year 1974. He would
submit that the fact that the then Municipal Council had installed water
meter to the house of father of Petitioner No.1 would leave no manner of
doubt that Petitioner No.1 cannot be treated as mere slum dweller. In any
case, according to Mr. Nargolkar when each of the Petitioners in Writ
Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 are armed with Village Specimen No.2
evidencing allotment of land in their names, it is inconceivable that a
slum scheme can be implemented by ignoring the claim of allotment of
Page No. 13 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
land in favour of the said Petitioners. He would submit that though all
these documents were produced before the AGRC, the same are
altogether ignored. That AGRC has not decided the fundamental issue of
permissibility to implement slum scheme by ignoring the claim of
Petitioners being lawful holders of land. That the very jurisdictional fact
for declaration of land as slum is absent in the present case.
16) Mr. Nargolkar would further submit that since the very
Notification dated 27 October 2016 read with Corrigendum dated
30 May 2018 is ab initio void, implementation of slum scheme by issuance
LOI in favour of the Developer is ex-facie illegal and liable to be set aside.
He would submit that challenge to the said Notification and
Corrigendum has not even been considered or decided by AGRC and
that therefore the proceedings deserve to be remanded to the AGRC,
whose order suffers from gross non-application of mind.
17) Mr. Nargolkar would further submit that no enquiry is
conducted under the provisions of Section 4 of the Slum Act for
declaration of land bearing Survey No.502/A as slum land. That the land
in occupation of Petitioners does not fulfill any of the conditions
specified under Section 4 of the Slum Act. Therefore, the Notification
issued under the provisions of Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act in absence
of the land being declared as a ‘slum area’ under Section 4 of the Act is
clearly illegal.
18) So far as the rest of the Petitions involving challenge to the
orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act are concerned,
Mr. Nargolkar would submit that the issuance of eviction orders without
considering Petitioners’ claim of impermissibility of implementation of
slum scheme is like putting cart before the horse. That jurisdiction under
Page No. 14 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act is misused by illegally treating
Petitioners as mere slum dwellers ignoring the position that they are
lawful holders of land in their capacity as tribals. He would therefore
submit that the eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the
Slum Act are liable to be set aside. Lastly, Mr. Nargolkar would submit
that mere progress in implementation of the slum scheme by the
Developer cannot be a reason for bulldozing of lawful claims of poor
tribals, who are being denied their right to establish claims in respect of
lands allotted to them. He would therefore pray for allowing the
Petitions by setting aside Notification dated 27 October 2016,
Corrigendum dated 30 May 2018, LOI dated 7 December 2022, Annexure
II dated 6 May 2022 and all permissions granted in favour of Respondent
No.6 in respect of lands allotted in the name of Petitioners of Writ
Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025. He would further pray that till the
claims in respect of the Petitioners of Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of
2025 are decided, the SRA and the Developer cannot be permitted to go
ahead with the slum scheme by treating the Petitioners as mere slum
dwellers. He would therefore submit that the eviction orders passed
under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act are also required to be set
aside.
19) Mr. Kamble, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.755/2025 and 756/2025 would submit
that his clients are tribals, who are occupying Gairan land for the last
more than five decades. He would submit that the tribals are allowed to
occupy Gairan land and are notified as permitted occupants. That the
Slum Scheme is illegally being implemented on Gairan land. That no
other person apart from identified persons can be permitted to encroach
upon or occupy Gairan land. That therefore implementation of slum
Page No. 15 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
scheme on Gairan land is otherwise impermissible in law. He would rely
upon judgment of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and others Versus.
State of Punjab and others1 in support of the contention that it is
impermissible to regularize encroachment upon Gairan land and that
regularization is permitted only where the land is occupied by members
of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. He would also rely upon
Government Resolutions dated 12 July 2011 and 4 April 2022 in support
of his contention that only tribals can be permitted to occupy Gairan
lands. He would submit that the Notification dated 27 October 2016
declaring land bearing Survey No.502/A as slum rehabilitation area is ab
initio void. That the AGRC has not even decided the issue of validity of
the said Notification in the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners. He
would submit that the Petitioners have already filed proposal for
regularization of their occupation to the Collector and that the same are
under consideration. He would submit that in case of one of the tribals,
the regularization proposal is rejected which rejection is challenged
before the Division Bench of this Court. That Petitioners are erroneously
being treated as encroachers by comparing them with slum dwellers
without appreciating the nature of their possession. That they are
occupying the lands in their capacity as tribals for over last four decades
which is impermissible in view of Apex Court judgment, as well as the
G.R.s dated 4 April 2022 and 12 July 2011. He would submit that the land
bearing Survey No.502/A was always entered in revenue records as
Gairan land and that the mutation entry was wrongfully changed in the
name of State of Maharashtra only for the purpose of implementation of
Slum Scheme in connivance with the developer. That though the Writ
Petition Nos.755 and 756/2025 are filed by the two Petitioners, there are
total 34 tribals who are occupying the land by construction of houses. He
would however clarify that out of the 34 tribals, only 17 are litigating,
1 (2011) 11 SCC 396
Page No. 16 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
whereas rest 17 have submitted their documents of eligibility and have
been treated as eligible for implementation of the Slum Scheme. Mr.
Kamble would submit that the very implementation of the Slum Scheme
on land validly occupied by tribals is ab initio void. The eviction
proceedings initiated under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act were
clearly not maintainable. He would therefore pray for setting aside such
eviction orders.
20) The petitions are opposed by Mr. Damle, the learned senior
advocate appearing for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He would
submit that the Notification declaring various lands including Survey
No.502/A(Pt) as slum rehabilitation area was issued on 27 October 2016.
He would submit that the Notification under the provisions of Section
3C(1) of the Slum Act can be issued even in absence of declaration of any
area as slum under the provisions of Section 4 of the Slum Act. He would
submit that the provisions of Section 3C(1) override the provisions of
Section 4. He would submit that the period of limitation for challenging
declaration of land as slum rehabilitation area under the provisions of
sub-section (2) of Section 3C of the Slum Act is only 30 days whereas the
Appeal challenging the notification dated 27 October 2016 was filed after
lapse of period of 8 long years. He would submit that challenge to the
Notification issued under Section 3C(1) can be raised only by a person
having interest in the land. That Petitioners are admittedly not the
owners of the land and are merely occupying the same unauthorisedly.
That therefore they did not otherwise have locus to challenge the
Notification dated 27 October 2016. He would also question the prayer
made by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No. 615/2025 for exclusion
of entire land admeasuring 3.39 Hectares from the Notification by
submitting that the prayer itself was faulty and baseless. He would
Page No. 17 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
submit that except Village Specimen No.2, no other document of title
could be produced by the Petitioners. That it is conclusively proved that
the names of the Petitioners have not been mutated to the revenue
records in any manner. He would submit that the AGRC has taken all the
aspects into consideration while rejecting the baseless claims of the
Petitioners.
21) Mr. Damle would further submit that in pursuance of the
order passed by this Court on 15 January 2025, a survey has been
conducted by the Engineers of SRA, and he would invite my attention to
the Affidavit dated 6 February 2025 alongwith which, the entire records
of survey together with photographs have been appended. He would
submit that in the said survey, all the details of structures occupied by
the Petitioners and similarly placed persons have been noted. The
documents produced by them justifying their occupation has also been
noted in the said survey. He would accordingly pray for dismissal of the
petitions.
22) Mr. Naik, the learned senior advocate appearing for the
Developer would submit that the appeal preferred by the Petitioners in
Writ Petition (St) No. 615 of 2015 was beyond the period of limitation
prescribed under Section 3C(2) of the Slum Act. He would submit that
Petitioners present minuscule number of occupants of structures on land
bearing Survey no. 502/A which has total 1848 slum dwellers. If the
prayer in Appeal No.57/2024 is appreciated, the same envisages
deduction of the entire area of 3.39 Hectares of Survey No.502/A from
the slum scheme, which will affect the fate of 1848 slum dwellers. He
would therefore submit that the prayer for exclusion of the entire land
admeasuring 3.39 Hectares in Survey No.502/A was otherwise clearly
baseless and incapable of even being entertained on merits.
Page No. 18 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 23) So far as the total claim of the Petitioners in Writ Petition
(St.) No.615 of 2025 is concerned, Mr. Naik would take me through
various documents produced alongwith the Affidavit in Reply of
Respondent No. 6-Developer. He would submit that the 7/12 extract
depicts the name of the State Government as the holder with notification
dated 3 September 2016 being included in the ‘other rights’ column. He
would rely upon Letter of Intent dated 7 December 2022 issued in the
name of the Developer, in which it is clarified in para-6 that the land
belongs to the Government of Maharashtra. He would rely upon letter
dated 16 February 2024 of Tahsildar addressed to the Collector, in which
it is clarified by the Tahsildar that no portion of land in Survey No.502/A
is entered in the name of any tribal person and that therefore the
provisions of Sections 36 and 36A of the Code are inapplicable. He
would submit that the CEO/SRA had raised a query with the Collector
by letter dated 12 January 2024 about application of provisions of
Sections 36 and 36A of the Code to the land in question and that the
Collector had clarified by letter dated 15 October 2024 that the said
provisions are inapplicable as no rights of any tribal person are
recognized qua any portion of the said land. Mr. Naik would also rely on
letter dated 14 November 2024 of the Tahsildar by which the proposal
submitted by Petitioner No.1-Mahadev Laxman Bhuyal for inclusion of
his name in the revenue records was rejected. Mr. Naik would further
submit that the said Petitioner-Mahadev Laxman Bhuyal had filed a Suit
bearing Regular Civil Suit No.149/1986 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior
Division, Thane seeking eviction of one Ashok Baburao Basankar, which
came to be dismissed by decree dated 8 April 2010 holding that the said
Petitioner does not have a semblance of right in respect of the land
bearing Survey No.502/A. That the Appeal preferred by him was
dismissed on 1 July 2014. Mr. Naik would therefore submit that the claim
of title of Mahadev Laxman Bhuyal is actually negatived in collateral
Page No. 19 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
proceedings by the Civil Court.
24) Lastly, Mr. Naik would submit that much water has flown
under the bridge as the SRS has progressed further after issuance of LOI
dated 7 December 2022. He would submit that Respondent No.6-
Developer has been issuing LOI in respect of the total land admeasuring
48,520 sq.mtrs which is in addition to the land covered by Survey No.
502/A. That out of the total 2319 huts on the said land, 2255 huts have
been demolished and only 64 huts remain to be demolished. He would
invite my attention to the photographs as well was map of the site to
indicate as to how substantial progress has taken place at the site for
implementation of slum scheme. He would submit that reliance of the
Petitioners on Village Specimen No.2 is otherwise baseless as the same is
made only for the limited purpose of noting levy of agricultural tax in
respect of the land and the same is limited period upto 31 July 1991. That
there is no document on record to indicate that any further entries for the
year 1991 were made in the name of area of the occupants. He would
submit that even if the area of all alleged plots as per the Village
Specimen No.2 relied upon by the Petitioner is added up, the same is
only 4815 sq.mts, whereas the total land for implementation of the slum
scheme in Survey No. 502/A(Pt) is 33,200.58 sq.mtrs. Despite this
position, Petitioners raised a baseless plea for exclusion of the entire land
admeasuring 3.39 hectares in Survey No.502/A from the ambit of Slum
Scheme. Lastly, Mr. Naik would submit that in pursuance of order passed
by this Court on 15 January 2025, survey has been conducted by the
Engineers of SRA in which it has been found that only 42 structures are
yet to be demolished out of which 21 structure are eligible as on
1 January 2000. Additionally, 12 structures can be considered as Sashulk
eligible (entitled to rehab tenement on payment of costs of construction)
as per GR of 2011 and about 9 structures would be ineligible on account
Page No. 20 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
of lack of documentary evidence prior to 2011. He would thus submit
that the entire scheme cannot be halted on the basis of baseless and
belated claims raised by minuscule number of occupants merely because
they claimed status as tribals. He would submit that for declaration of
land as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act,
notification of land as ‘slum area’ under Section 4 of the Act is not
necessary. In support of is contention, Mr. Naik would rely upon
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Tukaram Patil and
others Versus. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and others 2. He would
submit that the Division Bench of this Court has held that declaration
under Section 3C(1) of Slum Act can be made in the absence of
declaration of any land as slum area under Section 4. He would
accordingly pray for dismissal of the petition.
25) Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Society would submit that this Court may not interfere in the impugned
order of the AGRC at this belated stage considering the progress made at
the site. He would invite my attention to the findings recorded by the
AGRC in para-50 of its order recording that out of 2318 slum structures,
2043 structures have been demolished and only 258 structures are yet to
be demolished. That only 170 occupants out of the said 285 structures are
refusing to co-operate. He would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court
in Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others Versus. The Tahsildar-1,
Special Cell & Others3 in support of his contention that that it would not
be otherwise prudent to make interference in the Slum Scheme
considering the progress made at the site. He would also rely upon
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Madhukar Bhondve
2 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2552
3 Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.1665/2023 decided on 27 February 2025.
Page No. 21 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
and others Versus. State of Maharashtra and others 4 in support of his
contention that Section 22A of the Code cannot be a bar for
implementation of Slum Scheme on Gairan land. Mr. Khandeparkar
would also rely upon judgment of Division Bench in Santosh Madhukar
Bhondve in support of his contention that once the assessment is made
by the AGRC about existence of circumstances for making declaration
under Section 3C(1) of Slum Act, writ court cannot enter into the realm
of reassessment of existence of such circumstances. He would submit
that the objection of non-existence of jurisdiction raised by the Petitioners
is baseless as it is Petitioners who have invoked the jurisdiction of the
AGRC. That the delay in filing of the Appeals is fatal in the present case
as the slum scheme has progressed substantially. Lastly, he would submit
that any interference by this Court at this stage would hamper the rights
of thousands of slum dwellers who have vacated their structures and are
awaiting the construction of rehab tenements for them.
26) Ms. Kapadia, the learned AGP would support the impugned
orders and seek dismissal of the Petitions.
D. REASONS AND ANALYSIS 27) There are two sets of petitions filed by the Petitioners. The
main petition, which is argued by Mr. Nargolkar is Writ Petition (Stamp)
No. 615/2025, which challenges the order passed by the AGRC on 12
March 2025 dismissing Appeal No.57/2024 which was filed by
Petitioners therein. Appeal No.57/2024 raised much broader issues
relating to legality of Notification dated 27 October 2016, by which the
land bearing Survey No.502/A was declared as ‘Slum Rehabilitation
Area’, Corrigendum to the said Notification issued on 30 May 2018,
4 Writ Petition No. 3098 of 2021 decided on 12 September 2024
Page No. 22 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
Annexure-II prepared on 6 May 2022, LOI issued in favour of the
Developer on 7 December 2022, as well as all permissions granted for
implementation of slum scheme. The second set of petitions arise out of
orders passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of
Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act directing eviction of the Petitioners
involved in those petitions. The order passed by the Competent
Authority became subject matter of challenge in Appeals preferred
before the AGRC, which have been dismissed by the AGRC vide orders
dated 4 December 2024.
28) It would therefore be necessary to first consider Writ Petition
(St.) No. 615/2025 which raises broader challenge to the very
implementation of the Slum Scheme on the land bearing Survey
No.502/A. It is this petition, which has been mainly argued as a lead
petition by Mr. Nargolkar. As observed above, the petition was initially
filed as the Petitioners were aggrieved by vacation of interim stay by the
AGRC vide order dated 13 December 2024. It appears that earlier, AGRC
had stayed the LOI dated 7 December 2022 by its order dated
27 September 2024. The stay was however vacated by order dated
13 December 2024, which prompted filing of Writ Petition (St.)
No.615/2025. Since the Appeal remained pending, this Court requested
AGRC to decide the Appeal by order dated 24 February 2025. The AGRC
has rejected Appeal No.57/2024 by its order dated 12 March 2025. The
Petitioners have been permitted by this Court by order dated
18 March 2025 to amend Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2025 to incorporate
challenge to the order dated 12 March 2025, as it was submitted on behalf
of the Petitioners that the grounds raised in the petition would also cover
challenge to the final order dated 12 March 2025. Accordingly, Writ
Petition (St.) No.615/2025 has been amended and AGRC’s final order
dated 12 March 2025 has been challenged.
Page No. 23 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 29) Appeal No.57/2024 was filed under the provisions of
Section 35 of the Slum Act. Under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-
section (1A) of Section 35, Appeal lies before the AGRC against any
notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or approval issued
or given by CEO/SRA. Section 35 of the Slum Act reads thus :
35. Appeals
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, any person aggrieved by
any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Competent Authority, may
appeal to the Appellate Authority, who shall be a person holding a post not
below the rank of Additional Collector, in respect of the areas of Municipal
Corporations and “A” Class Municipal Councils, and not below the rank of
Deputy Collector, in respect of areas of other Municipal Councils, to be notified
by the State Government, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue
of such notice, order or direction.;
(1A) Any person,-
(a) aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Appellate
Authority under sub-section (1), may file an appeal within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of such notice, order or direction, before the
Grievance Redressal Committee;
(b) aggrieved by any notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or
approval issued or given by the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation
Authority or any Officer to whom the powers are delegated by the Chief
Executive Officer, may file an appeal within thirty days of receipt of such
notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or approval, before the
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.
(2) Every appeal under this Act shall be made by petition in writing
accompanied by a copy of the notice, order or direction appealed against.
(3) Any appeal shall not operate as a stay order appealed from except so far as
the Appellate Authority may grant by reasoned order, nor shall execution of
any other be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from,
but the Appellate Authority may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of
such order and if the notice, order or direction against which appeal is made
and is set aside by Appellate Authority on an appeal disobedience thereto shall
not be deemed to be an offence.
(4) No appeal shall be decided under this section unless the appellant had been
heard or has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person or through
a legal practitioner.
Page No. 24 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
(5) The decision of the [Grievance Redressal Committee and the Apex
Grievance Redressal Committee] on appeal shall be final and shall not be
questioned in any court.
30) Invoking the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section
35(1A)(b) of Slum Act, Appeal No.57/2024 was filed by the Petitioners in
Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2025 seeking following prayers :
19. In the circumstances, the Appellants pray that:-
a) this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to call the record and proceedings;
b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to carve out the area of land being
Survey No.502/A, admeasuring 3.39.0 HR situated at Paach Pakhadai,
Taluka & District Thane out of the total area mentioned in Letter of
Intent dated 07.05.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1.
c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to modify the Letter of Intent (LoI)
dated 07.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 and Notification dated
27.10.2016, Corrigendum dated 30.05.2018, Annexure-II dated
06.05.2022 and other permissions granted in favour of Respondent No.6
by excluding the area admeasuring 3.39.0 HR out of Survey No.502/A
(Pt) situated at Paach Pakhadai, Taluka & District Thane.
d) this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to quash and set aside the
Notification dated 27.10.2016, Corrigendum dated 30.05.2018,
Annexure-II dated 06.05.2022 and Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 07.12.2022
issued by Respondent No.1 to the extent of Appellants land bearing
Survey No.502/A, admeasuring 3.39.0 HR situated at Paach Pakhadi,
Taluka & Dist. Thane.
e) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, this
Hon’ble Authority be pleased to grant stay to the operation,
implementation and effect of the Notification dated 27.10.2016,
Corrigendum dated 30.05.2018, Annexure-II dated 06.05.2022 and Letter
of Intent (LoI) dated 07.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 to the extent
of Appellants land bearing Survey No.502/A, admeasuring 3.39.0 HR
situated at Paach Pakhadi, Taluka & Dist. Thane;
f) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (e) above;
g) to pass any such other and further orders as your Lordship deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
h) Cost be granted
Page No. 25 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
31) Thus, in Appeal No. 57/2024, the main prayer of the
Petitioners was to carve out area of land admeasuring 3.39 Hectares in
Survey No.502/A from the LOI dated 7 December 2022. The LOI dated
7 December 2022 has been placed on record by Respondent No.6-
Developer alongwith its Affidavit-in-Reply, which is for implementation
of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on land bearing Survey No. 502/A(Pt), 67,
83/4, 84/1 to 7 (Pt) at Village-Panch Pakhadi, Thane. Thus, what
Petitioners desired in their Appeal No. 57/2023 is to exclude the entire
area of Survey No. 502/A from the ambit of LOI dated 7 December 2022.
The area of land bearing Survey No.502/A as per 7/12 extract is 3.39
Hectares. Petitioners also challenged Notification dated 27 October 2016
issued under the provisions of Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act. Under
Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, the CEO/SRA is empowered to make a
declaration of any land as ‘Slum Rehabilitation Area’ for implementation
of SRS. Section 3C provides thus :
3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area.
(1) As soon as may be, after the publication of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,
the Chief Executive Officer on being satisfied about the circumstances in
respect of any land, whether or not previously declared as slum area, justifying
its declaration as the Slum Rehabilitation Area which may include community
economic activity area, for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, shall
after giving the land owners, including any public authorities or local bodies
under the State Government constituted under any law enacted by the State
Legislature, thirty days notice and after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard, by an order published in the Official Gazette, and thereafter
within forty-five days, declare such land to be a “Slum Rehabilitation Area”.
The order declaring the Slum Rehabilitation Area (hereinafter referred to as
“the slum rehabilitation order”), shall also be given wide publicity in such
manner as may be specified by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything contained in
any law for the time being in force, in such Slum Rehabilitation Area, the
permission or the No Objection Certificate of the land owning authority or
agency shall not be required:
Provided that, only in respect of any land which is required for Vital Public
Project purpose, as per orders of the State Government and where the State
Government either directly or through any public authority has undertaken
the responsibility of relocation and rehabilitation of the protected and other
Page No. 26 of 49
4 April 2025::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FCoccupiers of the building, then the Chief Executive Officer shall, exclude the
land required for Vital Public Project from the Slum Rehabilitation Area and
issue an order to omit such land from the Slum Rehabilitation Area. Where the
State Government either directly or through any public authority has
undertaken the responsibility of relocation and rehabilitation of the protected
and other occupiers of the building, such public authority shall prepare the
Scheme of such rehabilitation or relocation and get it approved by the Chief
Executive Officer within the period specified in the Scheme which shall not be
more than ninety days.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Chief Executive Officer may,
within thirty days of the publication of such slum rehabilitation order, prefer
an appeal to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. The decision of the
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in such appeal shall be final.
(3) On the completion of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Slum
Rehabilitation Area shall cease to be such area.
32) The Notification dated 27 October 2016 was issued by the
CEO/SRA declaring 12 parcels of land in Village-Panch Pakhadi as
‘Slum Rehabilitation Area’ under the provisions of Section 3C(1) of the
Slum Act. For the purpose of the present petition, only 4 parcels of the
land at Serial Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 [Survey Nos. 67, 502/A(Pt), 83/4(Pt),
84/1 to 7 (Pt)] are relevant. Out of the said four parcels of lands,
Petitioners are concerned with only land admeasuring Survey No.502/A
(Pt) and they desired exclusion of the entire land admeasuring 3.39
Hectares from the ambit of the slum scheme and accordingly challenge
to the Notification dated 27 October 2016 was raised in Appeal
No.57/2024.
33) Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3C,
Notification issued under the provisions of sub-section (1) can be
challenged in Appeal before the AGRC within a period of 30 days from
the date of publication of the said Notification. In the present case,
however the Notification dated 27 October 2016 was challenged after
lapse of period of 8 long years by filing Appeal No.57/2024 on
Page No. 27 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
2 September 2024. It appears that an application for condonation of delay
was filed. By order dated 27 September 2024, delay in the filing the
Appeal was condoned. Since delay in filing the appeal was condoned, the
Appeal was required to be heard on merits and the same has been
decided on merits. The issue of delay, rather laches, on the part of
Petitioners in filing the Appeal challenging Notification after 8 long years
is highlighted by the contesting Respondents more for demonstrating the
adverse effect such challenge would have to the implementation of the
slum scheme, which has progressed substantially in the last 8 long years.
This issue is being discussed in the latter part of the judgment.
34) The entire thrust of submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
in Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2024 is that they actually are the
allottees/grantees of respective plots of land and that therefore the slum
scheme cannot be implemented on the portion of lands allotted in their
names. It is the case of those Petitioners that being members of tribal
community, the State Government has allotted plots of land for
construction of houses to the tribal-Petitioners during the years 1949-50
and entries to that effect have already been made to the revenue records.
The sheet anchor of claims of those Petitioners is Village Specimen No.2
issued in the names of their ancestors on the basis of which, it is sought
to be contended that there is direct evidence of allotment of plots of land.
I have gone through the copies of Village Specimen No.2 filed by the
Petitioners alongwith Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2025. For the purpose of
illustration, the claim of the first Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal is
considered. He has relied upon Village Specimen No.2 dated
4 September 1996 issued by Talathi, Village-Panch Pakhadi. The
document is titled as ‘गाव नमु ना नं बर : दोन, अकृषीक महसु लाचे नोंदवही
उतारा’ (Village Specimen No. 2, Extract of Register for Non-Agricultural Tax).
Page No. 28 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
The land therein is described as Gairan Survey No.502/A (Pt). It is
Petitioner’s claim that Plot No.12 admeasuring 195 sq. var was allotted for
construction of house in the name of Laxman Bhendu Bhuyal, father of
Petitioner No.1. Under the column-Manjuricha Hukum (order of
approval), there is reference to Collector LND-SR-1231 dated
27 March 1950 and LND-2023 dated 30 March 1950. However, there is a
separate column under the heading ‘Mudat’ (period) which shows that
the period as 1 August 1979 to 31 July 1991.
35) It is on the basis of this document of Village Specimen No.2
that Petitioner of Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2025 lay their claim of
ownership in respect of plots of lands described in the said document.
On the contrary, it is the contention of the contesting Respondents that
the entries made in the Village Specimen No.2 are meaningless and were
made for the limited purpose of recording revenue assessment for non-
agricultural use during the period from 1 August 1979 to 31 July 1991. It
is an admitted position that after 31 July 1991, the said entries relating to
non-agricultural assessment have not been made in the revenue records.
36) It appears that some of the Petitioners have made efforts to
get their names mutated in the revenue records from time to time. One of
them (Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal) had approached the Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission with the grievance of non-mutation of their
names to the revenue records. Reliance is placed on order dated 3 March
2008 passed by the Commission in complaint filed by Mahadeo Laxman
Bhuyal. The order reads thus:
Page No. 29 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FCORDER
Applicant present. On behalf of respondent Shri. M Y bhoite present.
Applicant vide his letter dt. 13/11/07 has complaint regarding —.
During the hearing respondent express the satisfaction of the case vide
her report dated 01/03/08. the applicant express satisfaction about the
development and express thanks to the Commission for the prompt
action taken on this commission and request then the matter be close.
The request accepted and the matter closed under sec. 17(1)(b) of
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
37) The complaint filed by Shri. Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal with
the Human Rights Commission came to be closed as he expressed
satisfaction over contents of the report dated 1 March 2008 submitted by
the Collector. The said report is not placed on record. Thus, the
Commission never directed mutation of his name to the revenue records.
38) It appears that after hiatus of 10 long years, some of the
Petitioners renewed their efforts for getting their named mutated to the
revenue records in the year 2016 by alleging non-implementation of
Order passed by the Human Rights Commission. The Collector had
replied to Mr. Bhuyal on 29 February 2016 that his application was
forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, with copy thereof to the SDO,
who in turn called for report of Tahsildar. The Tahsildar sent a report
dated 17 April 2016 by appending the letter of the Circle Officer dated
16 May 2016. The Circle Officer had referred to Village Specimen No.2
and guidance of Tahsildar was sought by him. In my view, the above
correspondence would only point out to the efforts made by the
Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal to have his name mutated to the
revenue records. It would be too dangerous to record a finding of fact
that the said Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal became owner of Plot
No.12 out of land bearing Survey No.502/A admeasuring 195 var. The
attempt made by Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal to impress upon
AGRC and this Court that he is the allottee and owner of such plot on the
Page No. 30 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
basis of the correspondence of revenue authorities and order of Human
Rights Commission appears to be not only misconceived, but also based
on suppression of facts. He has suppressed the fact that he had filed suit
for seeking recovery of possession based on claim of title, which has been
dismissed. This fact was suppressed by him in the Petition as well as
before the AGRC, which is brought on record by the Developer by way of
Affidavit-in-reply. It would be necessary to take a quick stock of the said
litigation filed by Petitioner- Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal.
39) Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal had filed Regular Civil
Suit No.149/1986 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Thane
against one Mr. Ashok Baburao Basankar branding him to be
unauthorised occupier. Plaintiff therein (Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal)
claimed ownership in respect of portion of land bearing Survey
No.502/A and alleged that the Defendant was unauthorisedly occupying
the same. Specific issue was framed by the Trial Court as to whether the
Plaintiff therein proved his ownership in respect of the land in question.
The issue was answered in the negative by recording following reasons :
13. The reason for reproducing some of the contents over here is, this
gives the exact position of the title of the land. When the extension was
not obtained, the lease grant expired on 01/01/50. No doubt possessory
rights are with the grantees. Plaintiff is one of those. It means he does
not have any title in respect of the land beneath the suit tenement. It
is also necessary to see what P.W.2 and P.W.3 has said in respect of this
issue in their oral evidence. In examination in chief P.W.2 stated that the
property bearing no.9120634 stands in the name of plaintiff. But in his
cross examination is admitted that entire Chirag Nagar is the
government property.
14. P.W.3 also in his cross examination admitted that Survey No. 502/A
is a Government Land for “Gurcharan”. He further stated that entire
Chiragnagar is occupied by unauthorised structures. He further
admitted that government land cannot be rented out.
(emphasis added)
Page No. 31 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
40) The suit preferred by the Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman
Bhuyal, which was premised on the claim of title, was dismissed by the
Trial Court by decree dated 8 April 2010. Civil Appeal No. 125/2010 was
preferred by him challenging the Trial Court’s decree before the District
Court, Thane. The appeal was however dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 1 July 2014 by recording following findings:
So after careful scrutiny of the document mentioned here-in-above, it
is clear that the land under the structure is government land
[Gurcharan S.No. 502/A (Part)]. The notification of the slum of the said
land is also on record (No Exhibit is given, but it is on document page
no.63). So admittedly the land S. No. 502/A(part) is slum on
government land.
(emphasis added)
41) Thus, the claim of ownership of Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman
Bhuyal based on Village Specimen No. 2 has already been negatived by
the Civil Court. The issue that arises for consideration is whether he can
be permitted to claim title in respect of the land before the AGRC ? The
answer to the question appears to be in the emphatic negative. Having
failed to establish title before the Civil Court, Petitioner-Mahadeo
Laxman Bhuyal cannot be permitted to scuttle the implementation of
slum scheme by raising claim of ownership before AGRC. It was too
adventurous on his part to expect that AGRC would set aside declaration
of Slum Rehabilitation Area by issuing him certificate of title.
42) Additionally, in support of their claim of being the allotees
of the plots of land, Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025
have relied on various other documents such as :
(i) Electricity bill showing supply as on 3 August 1988.
(ii) Receipt towards payment of non-agricultural tax
dated 5 June 2023.
Page No. 32 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
(iii) Municipal Assessment Bills for the year 2023-
2024.
(iv) Receipt issued by Thane Municipal Council for
supply of water.
(v) Property tax receipt issued by Thane Baro
Municipal Council of 10 August 1965, etc.
43) These documents may prove occupation of structures
situated on the land bearing Survey No.502/A. The issue is whether all
these documents can be considered for the purpose of acceptance of
claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 as owners of
the land. Answer to the question appears, to my mind, to be in the
negative. Those documents would only help those Petitioners for proving
occupation of structures by them for a long time. However, inference of
title cannot be drawn in absence of production of any valid allotment
order issued by the Collector allotting any portion of the land in favour
of any of the Petitioners. What must be borne in mind is that the land
belongs to the Government as per the revenue entries. Therefore, the
only manner in which government can dispose of the land is through
making an order of allotment. Mere social background of Petitioners as
tribals would not be a reason for raising a surmise that occupation of
structures would automatically mean allotment of lands in their names.
44) It appears that claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.615 of 2025 in respect of title has been repeatedly rejected by the
revenue authorities. It appears that Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal
had filed complaint with SRA against implementation of slum scheme by
claiming ownership of Petitioners in land bearing Survey No.502/A.
Since the claim was based on occupancy of land admeasuring 4774.17 sq.
mts. as tribals, CEO/SRA wrote letter dated 4 January 2024 to the
Collector calling for a detailed report as to whether provisions of
Page No. 33 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
Sections 36 and 36A of the Code were applicable to any portion of land
in Survey No.502/A. District Collector, Thane, had called upon Tahsildar
to make an enquiry by letter dated 6 February 2024. Tahsildar conducted
enquiry and submitted report dated 16 February 2024 as under :
क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि -R-२३४४/२०२४. वि नांक : १६/०२/२०२४
प्रति ,
ना. जिजल्हाति कारी ठाणे
(कुळ विह ाट शाखा)वि षय :- झोपडपट्टी पुन स/ न योजना झोपडपट्टी पुन/ सन क्षेत्रा आवि ासी यांच्या
हरक ीबाब .
सं र्भ/ :- आपलेकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/-१/टे-२/टेनन्सी/कवि /एसआर-३/२०२४,
वि .६/२/२०२४ रोजीचे पत्र.
उपरोक्त वि षयांचे सं र्भिर्भय पत्रान् ये श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भूयाळ स्थाविनक रविह ाशी से ा संघ इ र
यांनी मा. मुख्य काय/ कारी अति कारी मुंबई महानगरप्र ेश झोपडपट्टी प्राति करण यांचेकडे केलेल्या क्रारी
अजा/च्या अनुषंगाने मौजे पाचपाखाडी येथील स नं.५०२/अ सं र्भा/ ील ७/१२, फेरफार, विबनशे ी आ ेश
आ श्यक काग पत्रासह अह ाल सा र करणेबाब विन Jश वि लेले आहे .
त्याअनुषंगाने लाठी सजा पाचपाखाडी यांचंमाफ/ सवि स् र चौकशी केली अस ा त्यांनी
त्यांचेकडील पत्र क्र.पा.पा/पत्र/बाविन.१८८/२०२४, वि .१६/२/२०२४ अन् ये सोब ची सहपत्रे पाह ा
खालीलप्रमाणे स् ुस्थिस्थ ी वि सून ये े.
मौजे, पाचपाखाडी येथील स नं.५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३.३९.० हे आर चे अति कार अभिर्भलेख पासले
अस ा स र जमीन मुळपासून गुरचरण जमीन आहे. सचे स नं.५०२/अ बाब गा चा नमुना ोन म ील
नों क्र.१५६ े १६६ ला कलेक्टर नं.lnd. sr १२३१ वि .२७/३/५० लग प्रा.नं.lnd २०२३
वि .३०/३/५० ा.Ind sr ३२९ वि .४/४ नुसार नों ी ाखल आहे . सेच नों क्र. २०० े २१० ला
प्रां हु नं.lnd sr I २१३१ वि .८/६/५१ ा. Ind sr iii १८३ वि .२८/६/५१ नुसार नों ी असून त्यांची
नक्कल सोब जोडली आहे. त्यांन र गा ी फेरफार क्र.४५९८ वि .११/१०/२०२४ नुसार महाराष्ट्र शासन
महसूल न वि र्भाग यांचेकडील परिरपत्रक क्र. जमीन १०९१/७१३/प्र.क्र.५९/ज-१ वि .१४/१२/१९९८
लग मा. जिजल्हाति कारी ठाणे यांचेकडील पत्र क्र.महसूल/क-१/टे-२/कावि -f ११६२६९४७१५४२७८
वि .३०/८/२०२१ लग या काया/लयाकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि –
९२१५/२०२४/१२४६ वि .२९/९/२०२१ प्रमाणे स र जमीन कब्जे ार स री गुरचरण ही नों कमी करुन
महाराष्ट्र शासन अशी नों ाखल आहे. सेच इ र हक्काल महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र अति सूचना
क्र.झो.पु.प्रा/उजिज.-२/तिचरागनगर /२०१६/१७२ वि .३/९/२०१६ नुसार झोपडपट्टी पुन स/ न योजना क्षेत्र
३३२०० चौ.मी. अशी नों ाखल आहे.
सेच आजरोजी अति कार अभिर्भलेख ७/१२ प्रमाणे मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा. जिज ठाणे येथील स
नं.५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३.३९.०० हे आर ही जमीन कोणत्याही आवि ासी व्यक्तीच्या ना े ाखल असल्याचे वि सून
ये नाही. त्यामुळे गा अभिर्भलेखाची पड ाळणी केली अस ा स र जमीन कलम ३६, ३६अ ला पात्र
असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही.
री मौजे पाचपाखाडी येथील स नं.५०२/अ चे विपकपाहणी ७/१२ चालू ७/१२ स / फेरफार
फेरफार क्र.४५९८ वि .११/१०/२०२४ च्या संतिचकेची छायांविक प्र सोब जोडू न सा र करी आहो .
पुढील सवि नय सा र
री प्रकरणी रीलप्रमाणे स् ुस्थिस्थ ी श/ क अह ाल सा र करी आहो . सोब लाठी सुजा पाचपाखाडी
यांचेकडील अह ाल जोडला आहे.
Page No. 34 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 45) The Collector accordingly wrote back to CEO/SRA on 15 October 2024 stating as under :
मौजे पाचपाखाडी येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे आर चे अति कार अभिर्भलेख पासले अस ा स र
जमीन मुळपासून गुरचरण जमीन आहे. सेच स.नं. ५०२/अ बाब गा चा नमुना ोन म ील नों क्र. १५६
े १६६ ला कलेक्टर नं. Ind. Sr १२३१ वि . २७/३/५० लग प्रा.नं. Ind २०२३ वि . ३०/३/५० ा.
Ind sr ३२९ वि .४/४ नुसार नों ी ाखल आहे . सेच नों क्र. २०० े २१० ला प्रां हु नं. Ind sr I
२१३१ वि . ८/५/५१ ा. Ind sr iii १८३ वि . २८/६/५१ नुसार नों ी असून त्यांची नक्कल सोब
जोडली आहे. त्यानं र गा ी फेरफार क्र. ४५९८ वि . ११/१०/२०२४ नुसार महाराष्ट्र शासन महसूल न
वि र्भाग यांचेकडील परिरपत्रक क्र. जमीन १०९१/७१३/प्र.क्र.५९/ज-१ वि . १४/१२/१९९८ लग मा.
जिजल्हाति कारी ठाणे यांचेकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/कावि /१६२६९४७१५४२७८ वि .
३०/०८/२०२१ लग हसील ार ठाणे काया/लयाकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि –
९२१५/२०२४/१२४६ वि . २९/०९/२०२१ प्रमाणे स र जमीन कब्जे ार स री गुरचरण ही नों कमी
करुन महाराष्ट्र शासन अशी नों ाखल आहे. सेच इ र हक्का महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र अति सूचना
क्र.झो.पु.प्रा/उजिज-२/तिचरागनगर/२०१६/१७२ वि .०३/०९/२०१६ नुसार झोपडपट्टी पुन स/ न योजना क्षेत्र
३३२०० चौ.मी. अशी नों ाखल आहे.
सेच आज रोजी अति कार अभिर्भलेख ७/१२ प्रमाणे मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं
५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे.आर. ही जमीन कोणत्याही आवि ासी व्यक्तीच्या नां े ाखल असल्याच वि सून
ये नाही. त्यामुळे गा अभिर्भलेखाची पड ाळणी केली अस ा स र जमीन कलम ३६ ३६अ ला पात्र
असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही असे हसील ार ठाणे यांनी आपल्या अह ाला नमु केले आहे.
सेच हजिसल ार ठाणे यांनी त्यांचेकडील पत्र क्र. महसूल/क-१/टे-२/जमीनबाब/कावि .
R ९६०/२०२४/२३६ वि . ०२/०२/२०२४ अन् ये आवि ासी बां ांच्या हरक ीबाब मौजे पांचपाखाडी
ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२अ या जविमनीबाब फेरफार विनहाय स् ुस्थिस्थ ी श/ क अह ाल
उपजिजल्हाति कारी सक्षम प्राति कारी, मुंबई महानगर प्र ेश, झोपडपट्टी पुन / सन प्राति करण, ठाणे-२ यांचेकडे
सा र केला आहे.
हजिसल ार ठाणे यांचा अह ाल उपलब् अभिर्भलेखाचे अ लोकन कर ा प्रश्नाति न जविमनीच्या
गा न नं.२ म ील घरांसाठी झोपडयांसाठी असलेल्या नां ोच्या अनुषंगाने काग पत्रे लाठी सजा
पाचपाखाडी, हजिसल काया/लय ठाणे, उपवि र्भागीय अति कारी ठाणे जिजल्हाति कारी काया/लया
काया/लया उपलब् नाही .
श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भुयाळ रा.लक्ष्मी तिचरागनगर, पोखरण रोड नं.१ ठाणे यांनी मा. राज्य मान ी
हक्क आयोग, मुंबई यांचेकडे वि नांक १३/११/२००७ रोजी अज/ ाखल केला हो ा स र अजा/ त्यानी मौजे
पाचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२ अ एकूण क्षेत्र ३-३९-०० हे. आर पैको गां. नं.नं.२ मध्ये नमु
नों ी प्रमाणे २२ आवि ासींची नों ७/१२ उ ा- र होणेबाब मागणी केली. स र अजा/च्या अनुषंगाने मा.
राज्य माविह ी आयोग यांचेकडील प्रकरण क्र. ४३१६/२००/३३२ वि नांक २३/०१/२००८ अन् ये वि नांक
२०/०२/२००८ रोजी सुना णी ठे ण्या आली. श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण र्भुयाळ यांनी राज्य मान ी हक्क आयोग
मुंबई यांचेकडे केलेल्या अजा/नुसार प्रकरण क्र. ४३१६/२००/३३२ वि . २२/०२/२००८ रोजी सुना णी
होऊन वि नांक ०३ माच/ २००८ रोजी प्रकरणी वि लेल्या आ ेशा खालील प्रमाणे नमु केले आहे.
Applicant present. On behalf of respondent Shri. M. Y. Bhoite present.
Applicant vide his letter di. 13/11/07 has complaint regarding “७/१२ च्या उ ा-या र
नों होणेचाय “. During the hearing respondent express the satisfaction of the case
vide her report dated 01/03/08. The applicant express satisfaction about the
development and express thanks to the Commission for the prompt action taken
on this Commission and request then the matter be close. The request accepted and
the matter closed under sec. 17(1)(b) of Protection of Human Rights Act. 1993.
राज्य मान ी हक्क आयोग मुंबई यांचेकडील उपरोक्त पारी आ ेश अज/ ार श्री. महा े लक्ष्मण
र्भुयाळ यांचे मागणी अज/ गां. नं.नं.२ मध्ये नमु नों ीच्या अनुषंगाने या काया/लयाचे वि . २२/०४/२००८
वि . १६/११/२०१२ रोजीच्या पत्रान् ये अह ाल मा. वि र्भागीय आयुक्त, कोंकण र्भ न माफ/ शासनास सा र
करणे आला. थाविप प्रकरणी शासनामाफ/ अंति म आ ेश प्राप्त झालेले नाही .
Page No. 35 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
द्नं र महाराष्ट्र (झोपडपट्टी सु ारणा, विनमू/लन आभिण पुनर्वि कास) अति विनयम १९७१ अन् ये ठाणे
महानगरपालिलका क्षेत्रासाठी झोपडपट्टी पुन / सन योजना यार करुन वि नांक १७ माच/ २०१६ रोजी
राजपत्रा प्रजिसचा केली असून स र योजने मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२ अ एकूण
क्षेत्र ३-३९-०० हे.आर पैकी ३३२००.५८ थी मी चा समा ेश करणे आला आहे.
मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे.आर. या जविमनीच्या ७/१२
स री मंजरू फेरफार क्र. ४५९८ वि .११/१०/२०२१ अन् ये र्भोग ट ार स री गुरुचरण अशी नों कमी
करुन महाराष्ट्र शासन अशी नों ाखल करणे आली असून इ र हक्का महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्रा
अति सूचना क्र.झो.पु.प्रा./उजिज-२/तिचरागनगर/२०१६/१७२ वि नांक २७/१०/२०१६ नुसार “झोपडपट्टी
पुन/ सन योजना” क्षेत्र ३३२००.५८ चौ.मी. अशी नों करणे आली आहे.
स र जविमनीच्या मुळ गां नमुना नं. २ चे अ लोकन कर ा गां नं. २ हे इ र कायम उत्पन्नाचे
रजिजस्टर आहे. स र रजिजस्टर (नो ी ही) म ील नों ी नमु आ ेश हे विबनशे ी पर ानगी आ ेश नसल्याने
स र आ ेशाचा अंमल मौजे पाचपाखाडी, ा.जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२अ एकूण क्षेत्र ३-३९-० हे. आर. या
जविमनीच्या ७/१२ स री वि सून ये नाही स र जमीनीच्या ७/१२ स री सन् १९२१ पयs गुरुचरण अशी
नों असल्याने स र जविमनीच्या अति कार अभिर्भलेखानुसार स र जमीन कलम ३६. ३६अ ला पात्र
असल्याचे वि सून ये नाही.
मौजे पाचपाखाडी ा. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ क्षेत्र ३३२००.५८ चौ.मी. क्षेत्रा र महाराष्ट्र झोपडपट्टी
(सु ारणा, विनमू/लन आभिण पुनर्वि कास) अति विनयम -१९७१ च्या र ु ी लागु असून संपूण/ क्षेत्र झोपडपट्टीने
व्याप असलेने स र जागे र राहणारे आवि ासी बां हे बेघर होणार नाही सेच त्यांना महाराष्ट्र झोपडपट्टी
(सु ारणा, विनमू/लन आभिण पुनर्वि कास) अति विनयम १९७१ च्या प्रचलिल ोरणानुसार अनुज्ञेय योग्य लार्भ
ेणेबाब आपलेमाफ/ काय/ ाही करा ी.
46) Thus CEO/SRA has satisfied himself about absence of
ownership claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 in
land bearing Survey No.502/A.
47) It appears that while complaining to CEO/SRA against
implementation of SRS on land bearing Survey No.502/A, Petitioners
had also filed applications before the Tahsildar on 12 February 2024 for
mutation of their names in the revenue records. By letter dated
14 November 2024, Tahsildar rejected the request stating as under :
आपण मौजे पांचपाखाडी, ा. जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२/अ या जविमनीचे ७/१२ स री र्भूमीहीन
आवि ासींचे ना ाची नों करणेबाब मा. जिजल्हाति कारी, ठाणे यांचे काया/लयाकडे केलेला अज/ मा.
उपवि र्भागीय अति कारी, ठाणे वि र्भाग, ठाणे यांचेकडील सं र्भिर्भय पत्रान् ये या काया/लयास प्राप्त झालेला आहे.
प्रस् ु पत्राचे अनुषंगाने मंडळ अति कारी, ठाणे यांचेमाफ/ सवि स् र चौकशी केली अस ा, मंडळ अति कारी,
ठाणे यांनी त्यांचेकडील पत्र क्र.जिस.ओ.टी/ शी-४६/२०२४, वि .२३/१०/२०२४ अन् ये या काया/लयाकडे
अह ाल सा र केलेला आहे. स रचा अह ाल सोब ची सहपत्रे पाह ा, खालीलप्रमाणे स् ुस्थिस्थ ी वि सून
ये े.
मौजे पांचपाखाडी, ा. जिज. ठाणे येथील स.नं. ५०२ अ ही जमीन सद्यस्थिस्थ ीमध्ये महाराष्ट्र शासनाचे
मालकीची असून इ र हक्कामध्ये महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र अति सूचना क्र. झो. पु. प्रा./उजिज-२/तिचराग
नगर/२०१६/१७२, वि .०३/०९/२०१६ नुसार झोपडपट्टी पुन स/ न योजना क्षेत्र ३३२००.५८ चौ. मी. अशी
Page No. 36 of 49
4 April 2025::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FCनों आहे. स रची जागा झोपडपट्टी पुनर्वि कास योजनेकरी ा आरतिक्ष असल्याने आपली वि नं ी मान्य कर ा
येणार नाही. सबब आपला उपरोक्त वि षयाचा अज/ या काया/लयाचे स् रा र विनकाली काढणे ये आहे.
48) It appears that separate application was filed by Shri
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal on 9 August 2024 for allotment of portions of
land in Survey No.502/A on ownership basis, which again was rejected
by the Tahsildar by a separate communication dated 14 November 2024.
49) The above documents will clearly indicate that Petitioners in
Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 are well aware of the fact that they
need to secure order for allotment of the land in their favour from the
State Government. The State Government has refused to allot the land in
their favour. Therefore, mere reliance on documents such as Village
Specimen No.2 or electricity bills, Municipal assessment bills, water
charges bills, etc. would be irrelevant for the purpose of drawl of
inference of ownership of land by those Petitioners.
50) It is sought to be contended that the AGRC has failed to
apply its mind to various documents relied upon by the Petitioners in
Appeal No.57 of 2024 and that the issue of title of Petitioners has been
entirely sidetracked by the AGRC. I am unable to agree. Though briefly,
AGRC has considered their claim of title and has recorded following
findings :
47. From the record, it further appears that, the 7/12 Extract of the
plot of land bearing Survey No. 502/A(pt), 67, 83/4,84/1 to 7(pt) clearly
indicate that, the Subject Property is owned by the Government of
Maharashtra and Appellants did not have any title document to
indicate their ownership in respect of said plot of land.
51. Survey No. 502/A has about 1848 numbers of hutments on it.
And there are merely 14 slum dwellers who are claiming to be tribals.
As per the documents submitted by the Appellants, some land was
shown as Gurucharan land and some part of the land has been allotted
to certain persons for non-agricultural purpose viz construction of a hut
The alleged tribals occupancy on the subject property was permissible
Page No. 37 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
for a period till year 1991. There is village Form-2 for non-agricultural
assessment showing these details and apart from this extract, there is
no documents to show their names as Bhogwatedar of the subject
property with these slum dwellers. As on today, Village Form-2 does
not bear names of alleged tribals.
52. Tahsildar, Thane by its order dated 02.02.2024 confirmed that
claims of alleged tribals cannot be granted with remark that there is
existence of slum on the subject plot of land.
53. Appellant never tried to vacate the subject plot of land occupied
by the slum dwellers but are now claiming entire vacant land which has
been vacated by the Respondent after following due process of law for
the redevelopment of the subject S. R. Scheme.
54. The Appellant are not able to produce any documentary
evidence of ownership of the said land. Order of Human Right
Commission, Communication from Collector or other Revenue Officer
were not acted upon and hence the claims of the Appellants is not
substantiated.
51) In my view therefore, AGRC has applied its mind to the
claim of title raised by Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of
2025. I therefore, do not find any valid reason to pass an order of remand
of the proceedings to the AGRC as sought to be suggested by Mr.
Nargolkar.
52) It is contended by Mr. Nargolkar that land bearing Survey
No.502/A has not been declared as a ‘slum area’ under provisions of
Section 4 of the Slum Act. He has submitted that the land in occupation
of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 cannot be treated as
unfit for human habitation and that it does not lack ventilation or
sanitation facility. He has thus suggested that the land as well as
structures in occupation of those Petitioners cannot otherwise be treated
as ‘slum area’ under Section 4 of the Slum Act. It is therefore contended
that in absence of declaration as slum area, further declaration of land
bearing Survey No.502/A as Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section
Page No. 38 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
3C(1) could not have been made. In my view, this contention is based on
complete misreading of provisions of Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act. The
plain language of Section 3C(1) would indicate that the CEO/SRA is
empowered to issue declaration as Slum Rehabilitation Area irrespective
of the fact where the land is previously declared as ‘slum area’ under
Section 4 or not. Thus, the land which is not previously declared as ‘slum
area’ under Section 4 can also be included in declaration under Section
3C(1) for the purpose of implementation of SRS. This principle is
accepted in Division Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Tukaram
Patil (supra) in which it is held in paragraphs 22, 25, 44, 45 and 46 as
under :
22. While on this, it is important to note that Section 3C uses the words
“whether or not previously declared as slum area, justifying its declaration as
the slum rehabilitation area”. Slum areas are covered in Chapter II, but this
is omitted from Chapter I-A. To understand how this works, the
declaration of a slum area (as distinct from a slum rehabilitation area) is
one under Section 4 and certain slum-like conditions must obtain.
Section 3C(1) is far wider in its scope and is not restricted to a
determination based on conditions that obtain on the ground. This is
not a distinction that can be obliterated. When, therefore, there is a slum
rehabilitation scheme, it is no answer at all to say that there are no slum
like conditions. The slum rehabilitation scheme set out in Section 3B
precedes the declaration of a slum rehabilitation area.
25. This use of the word ‘slum areas’ in Section 3A ties into the
definition and also to some extent Section 4 under Chapter II. But this
does not mean that the conditions specified in Section 4 will necessarily
determine the formulation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. Nothing in
the reading of Chapter I-A can be read to suggest this. All that the SRA
is required to do is to survey and review the existing position and then
to formulate and implement a slum rehabilitation scheme.
44. Mr. Jagtiani draws our attention to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Kantabai Vasant Ahir v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority1 That also
dealt with the Slum Act. There is an analysis of certain provisions of the
Act and in paragraph 17 the finding of the Supreme Court was that
Chapter I-A is a self-contained code and that the phrase ‘slum area’
used in Section 12(1) does not have the same meaning as in Section
2(ga). For the purposes of the slum rehabilitation schemes Chapter I-A
is a self-contained code. Thus, a slum area does not necessarily always
partake of the meaning under Section 4(1). This tells us that for the
purposes of a slum rehabilitation scheme, while one of the
Page No. 39 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
considerations may well be slum-like conditions as enumerated in
Section 4(1), it is not an essential requirement that those slum-like
conditions must necessarily restrict a slum rehabilitation scheme under
Chapter I-A.
45. Section 4 is not part of Chapter I-A. This is inter alia apparent from
Section 3D, which modifies other portions of the Slum Act and is
applicable to Chapter I-A. Section 12 is considerably modified. Section
11 is wholly omitted. Chapters II and III are also entirely omitted
(therefore including Section 4) for the purposes of slum rehabilitation
schemes.
46. Thus, from any perspective, no relief can be granted to the
Petitioners. The challenge to the Section 3C declarations and
notifications must fail.
53) The contention raised by Mr. Nargolkar that Notification
dated 27 October 2016 is contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the
Slum Act therefore deserves to be rejected.
54) The Notification dated 27 October 2016 is also challenged in
Writ Petition Nos.755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025 mainly on the ground that
slum scheme cannot be implemented on Gairan land. It is contended by
the Petitioners in those two petitions that land bearing Survey No.502/A
was always Gairan land and there is a complete prohibition on
regularization of illegal encroachment of such Gairan lands. Reliance is
placed on judgment of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) in which
it is held that unauthorised occupants of Gram Sabha /Grampanchayat/
Poramboke /Shamlat land cannot be regularised, that they should be
vacated and land must be restored to Panchayat. It is held that such
regularization is permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has
been granted under government notification to landless labourers or to
members of SC/ST communities. Reliance is also placed on Government
Resolutions dated 4 April 2022 and 12 July 2011. Notification dated 12
July 2011 is issued towards implementation of judgment in Jagpal Singh
Page No. 40 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
(supra). In my view however, reliance of Petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos.755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025 on judgments of the Apex Court in
Jagpal Singh and two Government Resolutions is misplaced as the land
is no longer Gairan land. Respondent No.6-Developer has placed on
record 7/12 extract, which records holder of the land as State of
Maharashtra. It appears that by Mutation Entry No.4598 dated
11 October 2021 the entry of ‘Gairan land’ has been deleted and name of
Government of Maharashtra is mutated to the revenue records in
addition to entry of SRS in respect of area admeasuring 33,200 sq.mts. as
per notification dated 27 October 2016. Thus, land bearing Survey
No.502/A which is infested with as many as 1848 slum structures is no
longer treated as Gairan land. The State Government is the owner thereof.
Therefore, judgment of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh or Government
Resolutions issued on 4 April 2022 or 12 July 2011 cannot come in the
way of implementation of slum scheme on the said land.
55) In Santosh Madhukar Bhondve (supra), the Division Bench
of this Court has considered the effect of provisions of Section 22A of the
Code dealing with the subject of prohibition on diversion of Gairan land
for construction of houses for economically weaker sections. This Court
recorded the submissions in paragraph 22 of the judgment as under :
22. Main plank of argument of Shri Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate
representing the petitioners is that in terms of the provisions contained in
Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966, Gairan land cannot be diverted or granted or
leased for any other use and since in this case Gairan land has been allotted in
favour of respondent No.4 – Corporation for use of construction of houses for
economically weaker section, the same is illegal being violative of the
prohibition contained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966. It is his further
submission that exception to prohibition as carved out in sub Section (2) of
Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966 will operate only with a pre-condition that
Gairan land may be diverted or granted or leased for public purpose/project
only if no other suitable land of the Government is available for such public
purpose/project and in the instant case, there is nothing on record to establish
that any other Government land was available for the construction of houses
for economically weaker section under the PMAY. Thus, it is his contention
that the allotment was is unlawful.
Page No. 41 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 56) Thus, the Division Bench of this Court has held in Santosh
Madhukar Bhondve that the State Government being the absolute owner
of its own land, putting any fetter on the right of the Government to
dispose of any property would be impermissible and that Government
would continue to have the authority and power to dispose of its land
notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Section 22A of the Code.
Therefore, challenge in Writ Petition Nos.755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025 to
the Notification dated 27 October 2016 was otherwise baseless and has
rightly been rejected by the AGRC while dismissing the appeal.
57) The challenge to the Notification dated 27 October 2016 is
otherwise belated. Though the delay in filing Appeal No.57 of 2024 was
condoned by the AGRC on 27 September 2024 the effect of the delayed
challenge to the said Notification cannot be ignored by this Court. The
slum scheme has progressed substantially during 8 long years when
Petitioners never thought of challenging the said Notification. After
issuance of Notification dated 27 October 2016, following developments
have taken place :
(i) Corrigendum was issued on 30 May 2018 rectifying area of
land at Survey No. 83/4 (part)
(ii) After survey all slum structures, Annexure-II was prepared
on 6 May 2022
(iii) LOI was issued in favour of the developer for
implementation of slum scheme in respect of larger portion
of the land admeasuring 41, 527.35 sq. mts.
(iv) IOD for rehab building 1 was issued on 7 June 2023.
(v) Revised LOI was issued on 21 June 2024 in respect of
increased land of 48550.28 sq. mts.
(vi) Demolition of 2255 slum structures has taken place after
Page No. 42 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
finalisation of Annexure-II and almost all the slum
structures excepting about only 64 structures have been
demolished.
(vii) For demolition of balance structures, proceedings were
initiated before Competent Authority on 4 July 2024 for
eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.
(viii) IOD for rehab building Nos. 2 and 3 and sale building Nos.1
to 5 upto plinth level was issued on 9 August 2024.
58) Implementation of the slum scheme has thus progressed
substantially and therefore it would be imprudent to otherwise make any
interference in the SRS at the instance of the Petitioners at this belated
stage. Reliance by Mr. Khandeparkar on recent judgment of the Apex
Court in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali (supra) in this regard appears to
be apposite. Apex Court has held in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 as under:
17. For the present slum area, SRA had pointed out before the High Court that
there were as many as 2965 slum structures which were surveyed and out of
these, 2625 were found to be eligible for rehabilitation. Also, the record shows
that Bharat Ekta Society is a bona fide society consisting of 261 slum dwellers
and more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society have taken a
considered decision that they want redevelopment of their slums, and a great
deal of progress has already been made in this regard so far. The project has
not only been sanctioned but has reached an advanced stage and at this stage,
the appellants cannot be allowed to disturb this ongoing project as it would
defeat the whole purpose of the redevelopment which is going to benefit a
large number of eligible slum dwellers.
18. Only four of the present appellants were there before the High Court and
rest of the appellants are fence sitters who have directly approached this Court
claiming that they are also affected by the order of the High Court, even though
they were never a party before the High Court. In any case, we find no merit in
their case.
19. No relief can be granted to these appellants as prayed. These appeals are
liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
Page No. 43 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 ::: Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC 59) In the present case as well, the current status of slum
structures on the plot as indicated by the developer is under:
Sr.No. Particulars Huts
1. Total number of Huts 2319
2. Amenity Huts 6
3. Balance Huts 2313
4. Demolished Huts 2255
5. Balance Huts 64
6. Huts to be demolished but deposit 3
collected
60) Thus, minuscule number of structure occupiers are holding
up implementation of the subject SRS where 2255 structures have
already been demolished. It is not that upon implementation of SRS and
demolition of structures of the Petitioners, they would been rendered
homeless. This Court directed conduct of survey of structures occupied
by Petitioners and other similarly placed persons by order dated
15 January 2025. The SRA has conducted survey of structures of
Petitioners and other similarly placed persons and has submitted report
before this Court vide Affidavit dated 6 February 2025. It appears that
the Tahsildar has surveyed 43 structures existing on land bearing Survey
No.502/A. He has noted all the details relating to actual area in
occupation of the concerned persons, documents relied upon by them
and has also taken photograph at the site. This course of action was
adopted by this Court with a view to ensure that record of structures of
Petitioners and other similarly placed persons is maintained for the
purpose of deciding their eligibility for allotment of rehab tenements
towards implementation of the subject SRS. It appears that majority of
the structure occupiers would be considered eligible on the basis ofPage No. 44 of 49
4 April 2025::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FCdocuments produced by them. They would accordingly become entitled
to be allotted rehab tenements.
61) The case thus presents a unique conundrum where
implementation of slum scheme of a very large magnitude is held up on
account of claims raised by the Petitioners. When almost the entire plot
of land is cleared of thousands of slum structures, the SRS cannot be
held up till Petitioners establish their alleged claim of title/ownership in
the land. Their conduct in not questioning notification of land as Slum
Rehabilitation Area immediately after 27 October 2016 assumes
importance. It is only when the Scheme started taking shape by
appointment of a developer that Petitioners thought of opposing the
same by creating hurdles in implementation of SRS.
62) In absence of any document evidencing allotment of land by
names of Petitioners and in the light of the revenue authorities
repeatedly certifying that no portion of land in Survey No. 502/A has
been allotted to any of the Petitioners, this Court is unable to recognize
any special status for them than that of mere occupiers of structures
constructed on Government land. The SRA has decided to clear the slum
by ensuring better living conditions for thousands of slum dwellers, who
are awaiting allotment of rehab tenements to them on ownership basis.
Petitioners, who are eligible, would also be provided with such rehab
tenements. In fact there are multiple structures on plots of land claimed
by Petitioners. Many structures are occupied by their relatives. This is
clear from the chart produced by the Developer alongwith its reply. To
illustrate, the land admeasuring 195 var is not occupied by Petitioner-
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal alone. As per the Chart filed by the Developer
along with its Affidavit-in-Reply, there are as many as 13 structures/huts
occupied by different persons, on the said land as under :
Page No. 45 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FCSr. Gav namuna Name Area Hut Nos. Current Hut Area Status
No. Entry No. Owners
11 166 (Mr. Laxman 195 war SDK_S04_ Dinesh WP/
Bandu 009/0050 Chandrakant 18995/24
Dhamale) Mr. Bhuyal pending
Laxman Bendu
SDK_S04_ Megha Not
Bhuyal
009/0051 Chandrakant consenting
Bhuyal existing
structure
SDK_S04_ Varsha Not
009/0052 Chandrakant consenting
Bhuyal existing
structure
SDK_S04_ Sunil WP/
009/0053 Chandrakant 18995/24
Bhuyal pending
SDK_S04_ Vanita WP/
009/0054 Jayendra 18995/24
Bhuyal pending
SDK_S04_ Happy WP/
009/0055 Raghunath 18995/24
Bhuyal pending
SDK_S04_ Mahendra Not
009/0056 Bhuyal consenting
existing
structure
SDK_S04_ Asha Ashok Consented
009/0057 Basankar to scheme
and
demolished
SDK_S04_ Mahadev WP/
009/0058 Laxman 18995/24
Bhuyal pending
SDK_S04_ Mahadev WP/
009/0059 Laxman 18995/24
Bhuyal pending
SDK_S04_ Yogesh Consented
009/0060 Mahadev to scheme
Bhuyal and
demolished
SDK_S04_ Sarita WP/
009/0061 Mahadev 18995/24
Bhuyal pending
SDK_S04_ Swapna WP/
009/0062 Ravindra 18995/24
Dhanawade pendingPage No. 46 of 49
4 April 2025::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FCIf the occupiers of 13 structures located on land claimed by Petitioner-
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal are found eligible, they would receive 13 flats.
Out of those 13 occupiers of structures, 11 are members of Bhuyal family.
Out of the 13 structure occupiers, two have consented to implementation
of SRS and 11 are opposing the same. Similar is the position in respect of
most of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 615/2025, who
would receive multiple flats in rehabilitation buildings against several
structures standing on the land in which they claim rights. Thus
implementation of slum scheme would result in rehabilitation of tribals
who would receive flats on ownership basis. On the other hand any
further delay in implementation of the Scheme would put the whole
scheme in serious jeopardy.
63) Thus the real contest here is not about any of the Petitioners
being rendered homeless on account of implementation of slum scheme.
Subject to satisfaction of their eligibility, the Developer is bound to allot
them rehab tenements in addition to payment of rent from the date of
demolition of their structures. What Petitioners expect is actually a
larger pie in implementation of the SRS. Their real objection is not to
prevent redevelopment of the land, which is already infested with
thousands of hutments, but what they are actually expecting is grant of
additional benefit as compared to other normal slum dwellers.
Petitioners are expecting that they should be granted a special treatment
during the course of implementation of slum scheme by being treated
differently than the other normal slum dwellers. However, no special
treatment can be granted to them on account of failure to prove
ownership of part of land bearing Survey No.502/A. If the Petitioners of
Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 615 of 2025 were really the owners of any
portion of land bearing Survey No.502/A why they permitted
mushrooming of thousands of slums in the said land has not been
Page No. 47 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
explained in any manner. AGRC has also recorded finding that those
Petitioners did not take any steps for removal of encroachment in the
land in which they claim ownership. There prayer before AGRC was to
carve out entire land admeasuring 3.39 Hectare in Survey No.502/A.
However, how Petitioners tolerated mushrooming of 1848 slum
structures on the said land and did not take any steps for removal of
encroachment has not been explained. It appears that only one
Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal made unsuccessful attempt of
seeking recovery of possession of land and structure by filing civil suit,
which came to be dismissed holding that he could not prove ownership
of the land. Said decree has attained finality. Except him, no other
Petitioner in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 has taken any step in
removal of any slum structure. It is only after slum structures are taken
up for rehabilitation, Petitioner now want award of different treatment
for the purpose of grant of additional benefits through implementation
of slum scheme, which is the real intention behind initiation of present
litigation. This Court cannot put implementation of slum scheme of such
massive magnitude to risk only because Petitioners want to fulfill their
desire of getting larger pie than other slum dwellers from the Developer.
64) I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the
impugned orders passed by the AGRC on 12 March 2025 rejecting the
Appeal No.57 of 2024 as well as order dated 4 December 2024 passed in
various appeals arising out of orders passed by Competent Authority
under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. The Developer is willing to
offer all the benefits arising out of implementation of slum scheme to the
eligible Petitioners. Immediately upon vacation of their structures, they
would be entitled to payment of transit rent. They would be allotted
rehab tenement by the Developer on ownership basis. Their
unauthorised structures will get converted into ownership tenements. I
Page No. 48 of 49
4 April 2025
::: Uploaded on – 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-18995-2024 with 9 others-FC
therefore do not see any error on the part of the AGRC in upholding
eviction orders passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.
65) The Petitions are thus devoid of merits. All the Petitions are
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. In view of disposal
of Writ Petition No. 18995 of 2024, nothing would survive in Interim
Application No. 1146 of 2025 and the same also accordingly stands
disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
66) After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Nargolkar, the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would seek stay on
dispossession and demolition of structures of the Petitioners for a period
of four weeks. The request is strenuously opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting Respondents contending that the entire
project is held up on account of non-cooperation by minuscule number
of structure occupiers, when about 2255 structures have already been
demolished. However, Mr. Naik, the learned senior advocate appearing
for the Developer fairly makes a statement that no steps shall be taken for
a period of two weeks for moving proceedings before the SRA for
implementation of order of eviction passed under Sections 33 and 38 of
the Slum Act qua Petitioners. Statement is recorded.
NEETA (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2025.04.04 18:25:55 +0530 Page No. 49 of 49 4 April 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 06:27:50 :::
[ad_1]
Source link