Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9877 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11675 OF 2016]
SHANKAR HIRANNA RAJANNA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9878 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11678 OF 2016]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9879 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25312 OF 2016]
J U D G M E N T
NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have come to us after a chequered
history, which has begun at least four decades ago.
JUDGMENT
Initially, a certain building, which would be referred
to as 102 D of property, admeasuring 2807 sq. meters
belonging to MHADA was said to be dilapidated and in
dangerous condition beyond economic repair. A notice
to this effect had been issued by MHADA dated
23.03.1982. Subsequently, buildings 102 A, B and C
were also declared as being beyond economic repair
under Section 88 of the MHADA Act in the year 1989.
Acquisition of the said four buildings took place under
Page 1
2
Section 93 of the said Act on 23.08.1990 and physical
possession of the land was taken by the Board on
11.12.1990. This acquisition was challenged in a writ
petition filed before the High Court. The High Court,
by a Judgment dated 04.08.1994, dismissed the said writ
petition, as a result of which, the proceedings for
acquisition came to a finality.
3. Sometime after 1989, we have been informed that
buildings 102 D and 102 B and C have since been
demolished and all the persons residing therein are in
transit camps that have been provided for by MHADA.
Building 102 A continues and the tenants continue to
live therein. Various proceedings took place, which it
is not necessary for us to go into in view of the fact
that by an order dated 10.05.2002 in SLP (C) No. 6991
of 2002, this Court directed MHADA to take a decision
JUDGMENT
on the appellants' proposal - i.e. proposal submitted
by tenants, uninfluenced by the decision of the High
Court, which was impugned in that case, and to bring
the decision to the notice of the Court.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a meeting was
held on 02.08.2004, by which, under the auspices of the
Chief Minister, it was decided that the entire land
under the four buildings aforestated would be returned
to the developers i.e. M/s Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2
3
(in short, "M/s Raj Doshi") for carrying out the
development project under Regulations 33(7) and 33(9).
Permission for the same had to be accorded by MHADA
under the aforesaid Regulations. All expenses required
to be incurred by MHADA were to be recovered from the
developers. The most important thing in the said
decision was that the consent letter of 70% of the
occupants should be given to the said builder and it
ought to be confirmed that at least 70% have so done.
Rehabilitation of the occupants was to be in a minimum
built up area of 30.65 Sq. meters. Armed with this
proposal, the tenants and the developers came back to
this Court and this Court, by an order dated
18.04.2005, had the entire matter sent back to the High
Court. On the belief that the necessary NOC/clearance
would be given by MHADA within a reasonable time, M/s
Raj Doshi withdrew their writ petition on 07.07.2005.
JUDGMENT
5. Unfortunately, this did not end the matter, which
had been hanging fire for a long time. No
NOC/clearance was forthcoming from MHADA in the light
of the decision taken dated 02.08.2004. This being the
case, the tenants again approached the High Court in
Writ Petition (C) No. 2545 of 2006. It took 10 years
for this writ petition, in turn, to be disposed of by
the High Court by the impugned Judgment dated
20.01.2016. In a nutshell, after reciting the
Page 3
4
chequered history of this case, the High Court
ultimately disposed of the writ petition by asking both
M/s Raj Doshi and another developer, who had entered
the fray in 2010, namely, M/s Matoshree Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. to prove that either one of them had the
requisite 70% consent of the occupants of these
structures, as required by Regulation 33(7). It was
further directed that MHADA was to undertake this
exercise and if it was found that neither of the
developers had the requisite 70% consent, MHADA would
then undertake the construction itself. With these
directions, the matter was listed again on 29.04.2016.
6. In the meanwhile, in compliance with the directions
contained in the impugned Judgment, an exercise was
carried out on 05.04.2016, by which MHADA came back to
the Court stating that neither of the developers had
JUDGMENT
the requisite 70% consent. It is at this stage that
various Special Leave Petitions have been filed and
which are the subject matter for decision before us.
7. This Court, in order to ascertain whether the
original developer, namely, M/s Raj Doshi had the
requisite 70% consent, ordered that, without prejudice
to the contentions available to all the parties, the
matter, being an old one, the Chief Officer of the
MBRRB was to call a meeting of the tenants/occupants to
Page 4
5
ascertain whether M/s Raj Doshi had the requisite 70%
consent from the tenants/occupants. This was to be
done within a period of four weeks. The matter then
came up before us on 05.08.2016, 08.08.2016 and
29.09.2016 and thereafter, has come up before us today.
We have been given a copy of the report that was asked
for by our order dated 12.07.2016.
8. By the report dated 03.09.2016, the Chief Officer
of the MBRRB has since ascertained that M/s Raj Doshi
commands 78.89% of the consent of eligible
tenants/occupants.
9. Regard being had to the fact that even the impugned
Judgment directed that it must first be ascertained
whether either private developer had the requisite 70%
consent, and regard being had to the fact that the
JUDGMENT
terms offered to the tenants in terms of the carpet
area of the tenement offered to them are more
favourable - M/s Raj Doshi offering 400 Sq. ft. as
against MHADA which offers a little above 300 Sq. ft.,
we are of the view that this litigation should be put
an end to.
10. We have also noticed that M/s Matoshree
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the other developer, who
has come into the fray only in the year 2010, has
Page 5
6
offered a higher area of 425 sq. ft. In addition, it
has also offered a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand) per month to be paid to each
tenant/occupant so that they can be accommodated in
transit camps or otherwise, until the requisite
structures are put up by the developer. On a query
made by the Court to M/s Raj Doshi, we were informed
that they would match these figures, i.e. they would
give each tenant/occupant 425 sq. ft. carpet area.
Also, Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per
month to each tenant/occupant of the one building which
remains, would be given after which the said building
would have to be demolished in order that the
construction/development under Regulations 33(7) and
33(9) takes place. We, therefore, direct the
tenants/occupants to vacate the said building within a
period of eight weeks from today. We also direct MHADA
JUDGMENT
and all Government and Municipal Authorities to give
the necessary NOC/clearances within the same period
i.e. eight weeks in accordance with law. We have been
assured by M/s. Raj Doshi that on and from the expiry
of these eight weeks, development will take place
within a period of 42 months thereafter. We record
this undertaking from the developer.
11. We hasten to add that the development spoken of
means that not only the construction will be completed,
Page 6
7
but would be ready for occupation within the aforesaid
period.
12. Given the peculiar facts of this case, we make it
clear that the order made by us today will not in any
manner hinder MHADA from carrying out its statutory
obligations and other duties in other cases.
13. Mr. M.L. Varma, learned senior counsel appearing
for MHADA, has expressed an apprehension that all the
dues statutorily payable by the developer to MHADA, as
per the policy and rules, must be paid in due course by
the developer. On a query made by the Court,
Mr.Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of M/s Raj Doshi, has assured us that the same
will be done.
JUDGMENT
14. With the aforesaid directions, these appeals are
disposed of.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
September 29, 2016.
Page 7