1. This first appeal filed by original Plaintiffs takes exception to
the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2013 passed by Judge, City
Civil Court, Mumbai in Long Cause Suit No.817 of 2005, by which
the Appellants’ suit is dismissed.
2. In this Judgment, The Maharshtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is referred to as ‘the Slum
Act’ for short. Slum Rehabilitation Authority is referred to as ‘SRA’ for
short. Government Resolution is referred to as ‘GR’. Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act is called MMC Act.
CASE
3. The case of the Appellants / Plaintiffs, in short, is as under.
Plaintiffs claim to be owners and occupiers on the basis of photo-
passes in their name of a structure which is constructed by them 30
years prior to suit. They are paying monthly compensation to the
Collector. According to the Appellants the suit premises is constructed
with brick masonry walls and A.C. roofing used for residential
purpose. According to the Appellants the suit premises are situated
on CTS No.151, 151/1 & 151(2) of Chembur, opposite Navjivan
FA-245-13 (J) C1.doc
Society. It is pleaded that the area of the suit premises is declared as
‘slum’ under government notification published in Government
Gazette dated 21.12.1978. According to the Appellants, they are
protected occupiers on the basis of photopasses and being in
occupation prior to 01.01.1995 which is the datum line. It is
contended that after the area being declared as slum, Slum
Improvement Board/Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for redevelopment
is undertaken and proposal for construction is submitted. It is
contended that the Appellants are occupying the suit premises for
more than 34 years. A notice under Section 351 of the MMC Act
dated 02.12.2003 is issued. It is contended that the Appellants
replied to the suit notice and thereafter speaking order dated
06.05.2004 and thereafter order dated 18.12.2004 are passed. It is
contended that despite submitting necessary documents and proof,
orders for removal of structure has been passed. According to the
Appellants, the suit premises are not newly constructed and they
have not changed original structure. While praying for declaration
that the suit notice and orders are illegal, it is contended that SRA
scheme is to be implemented and the suit premises is to be
demolished under the scheme and they need to be rehabilitated by
granting possession letter of alternate accommodation.