# PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. ~ ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1517
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-12-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7 435 of 2008
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pramila-sumansingh-thakur-v-st-ate-of-maharashtra-ors-24035
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

Urban Development - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme -
..
Composite application for slum rehabilitation for two plots -
i
One of the plots reserved for recreational purpose - Grant of c
'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the plot reserved for
recreational purpose - Denial of, in respect of the other plot
on the ground that in respect of that plot permission for
rehabilitation was granted to another developer - The order
of denial not challenged by the developer - Writ Petition
D
seeking direction to authority to consider her proposal -
Direction by High court to consider the application - Authority
holding that the developer not entitled to permission as her
1
application was deficient and the permission for a part of the
plot had already been given to other developer - Challenged
E
- High Court refusing to interfere with the matter - On appeal,
held: Permission rightly rejected - The developer not entitled
to relief, as she did not challenge the validity of the order
denying her permission - The application was also rightly
found deficient - Permission in respect of Plot No. 559 was
not correct as the same was reserved for recreational purpose
F
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - s.
159 - Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay,
1991 - Regulation 33 (10) - Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 -
Chapter 1A.
G
Final plot Nos. 559 and 569 in Bombay Municipal
Area were demarcated ·in terms of provisions of
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and
the scheme framed thereunder. The Plot No. 559 was
1517
H
1518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
declared as slum land by a Notification issued u/s. 3 (a)
of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Respondent No. 6 (a Cooperrative Group Housing
Society) filed an application for development of part of
B Plot No. 569. On 15.10.1996 Municipal Corporation
granted a 'No Objection Certificate' in its favour in
requisite Form i.e. Annexure-11 including the four chawls.
It gave all the particulars of eligible slum dwellers.
Appellant also appl!ed for a 'No Objection certificate'
C in respect ot'Plot No. 559 and a part of Plot No. 569. 'No
Objection certificate' was granted in respect of Plot No.
559. As regards the part of Plot No. 569, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority called upon Municipal
Corporation to clarify as to whether Certificate under
0
Annexure II in respect of the dwellers of the chawl could
be issued. Municipal Corporation rejected the proposal
by_letter dated 31.8.2001 stating that it had already issued
Annexure II in favour of respondent No. 6 and all the
names of the dwellers of the chawl had been appearing
therein.
E
Respondent No. 6 commenced the construction
activities. As per direction of the court, pursuant to a
litigation at the instance of the_ a-ppellant, Slum
Development Authority passed the order on the grounds
F that application seeking 'No Objection Certificate' was
deficient and Annexure II had already been granted to
respondent No. 6. Writ petition challenging the order was
dismissed by High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. The High Court should not have decided
such issues, as in the instant case, only on the ground
of lack of locus standi of the appellant to maintain the writ
application. She had the requisite locus standi. Her writ
application, thus, deserved consideration on merit. [Para
H 63] [1552-G-H; 1553-A]
(
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1519
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
2. In absence of any statutory provisions in terms
A
whereof the Corporation or for that matter any owner of
the land was required to issue no objection certificate, the
letter dated 15th October, 1996 cannot be said that it
amounts to a 'No Objection Certificate', which was
required to be obtained in terms of the statutory B
provisions. The Ward Officer was merely performing his
duties. He has no authority to grant a 'No Objec

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 74,607. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1517
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR
A
v.
~
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7 435 of 2008)
DECEMBER 19, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Urban Development - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme -
..
Composite application for slum rehabilitation for two plots -
i
One of the plots reserved for recreational purpose - Grant of c
'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the plot reserved for
recreational purpose - Denial of, in respect of the other plot
on the ground that in respect of that plot permission for
rehabilitation was granted to another developer - The order
of denial not challenged by the developer - Writ Petition
D
seeking direction to authority to consider her proposal -
Direction by High court to consider the application - Authority
holding that the developer not entitled to permission as her
1
application was deficient and the permission for a part of the
plot had already been given to other developer - Challenged
E
- High Court refusing to interfere with the matter - On appeal,
held: Permission rightly rejected - The developer not entitled
to relief, as she did not challenge the validity of the order
denying her permission - The application was also rightly
found deficient - Permission in respect of Plot No. 559 was
not correct as the same was reserved for recreational purpose
F
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - s.
159 - Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay,
1991 - Regulation 33 (10) - Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 -
Chapter 1A.
G
Final plot Nos. 559 and 569 in Bombay Municipal
Area were demarcated ·in terms of provisions of
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and
the scheme framed thereunder. The Plot No. 559 was
1517
H
1518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
declared as slum land by a Notification issued u/s. 3 (a)
of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Respondent No. 6 (a Cooperrative Group Housing
Society) filed an application for development of part of
B Plot No. 569. On 15.10.1996 Municipal Corporation
granted a 'No Objection Certificate' in its favour in
requisite Form i.e. Annexure-11 including the four chawls.
It gave all the particulars of eligible slum dwellers.
Appellant also appl!ed for a 'No Objection certificate'
C in respect ot'Plot No. 559 and a part of Plot No. 569. 'No
Objection certificate' was granted in respect of Plot No.
559. As regards the part of Plot No. 569, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority called upon Municipal
Corporation to clarify as to whether Certificate under
0
Annexure II in respect of the dwellers of the chawl could
be issued. Municipal Corporation rejected the proposal
by_letter dated 31.8.2001 stating that it had already issued
Annexure II in favour of respondent No. 6 and all the
names of the dwellers of the chawl had been appearing
therein.
E
Respondent No. 6 commenced the construction
activities. As per direction of the court, pursuant to a
litigation at the instance of the_ a-ppellant, Slum
Development Authority passed the order on the grounds
F that application seeking 'No Objection Certificate' was
deficient and Annexure II had already been granted to
respondent No. 6. Writ petition challenging the order was
dismissed by High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. The High Court should not have decided
such issues, as in the instant case, only on the ground
of lack of locus standi of the appellant to maintain the writ
application. She had the requisite locus standi. Her writ
application, thus, deserved consideration on merit. [Para
H 63] [1552-G-H; 1553-A]
(
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1519
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
2. In absence of any statutory provisions in terms
A
whereof the Corporation or for that matter any owner of
the land was required to issue no objection certificate, the
letter dated 15th October, 1996 cannot be said that it
amounts to a 'No Objection Certificate', which was
required to be obtained in terms of the statutory B
provisions. The Ward Officer was merely performing his
duties. He has no authority to grant a 'No Objection
Certificate' on behalf of the Corporation. What is meant
by such a no objection, should be considered from the
point of view that the Municipal Corporation, as a
planning authority at the relevant point of time gave its C
consent to carry out the rehabilitation project. [Paras 41,
42 and 48] [1544-G-H; 1545-A; 1546-E]
3.1. If the appellant was aware of the refusal on the
part of the Corporation to carry out its obligation under 0
the Scheme, i.e., to verify Annexure II, which for one ·
reason or the other, had been refused to be carried out,
it was necessary for her to question the validity thereof.
The Corporation in its counter affidavit before this Court
and the Rehabilitation Authority also in its affidavit
categorically stated that the application of appellant for
E
Annexure II was rejected on 31.8.2001, on the grounds
that the 44 slum dwellers on Plot No. 569 were already
included in Annexure II of respondent No. 6 and the same
has not been challenged by the petitioner. Appellant did
not traverse the said allegation that she had knowledge
F
thereabout. Furthermore, it does not appear that any
contention, in regard to the interpretation of the said letter
dated 31st August, 2001 was advanced before the High
Court. The aforementioned averments also clearly show
that a specific stand had been taken both by the G
Corporation as also by the Authority that the scheme in
respect of 1081 sq. m. of plot No. 569 was not viable.
[Paras 51, 58, 59 and 60] [1550-E-F; 1551-E-G; 1552-A-C]
3.2. Interpretation that by reason of the letter dated
31.8.2001 only the Corporation has refused to verify the
H
1520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A occupancy position for the purpose of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme and, thus, was not required to be
challenged, cannot be accepted. The authority was aware
of the said letter of the Ward Officer dated 15th October, -
1996. It was in that view of the matter, a request was made
8
to communicate as to whether there had been any other
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme pending for consideration
with reference to the Annexure U which had been issued
earlier by the Ward Officer, i.e., on 15th October, 1996. It
was in the aforementioned context, further verification
was required to be made. Consent, was given by the
C inhabitants of the slums in respect of the said 1081 sq.
m of land only. Their consent had not been obtained by
respondent No. 6. The schemes propounded by the
appellant and respondent No. 6 were different ones. Only -
a part of the scheme, viz., 1081 sq. m. of land was
D common. It was substantially different in material
particulars. In that view of the matter, it was necessary for
the appellant to.question the validity thereof. [Para 52]
[1548-D-H; 1549-A]
4. Annexure II may not have any statutory force but
E when guidelines were issued, an application for grant of
sanction for development of a slum area was required to
be in conformity with the said guidelines, unless the
same is found to be ultra vires. No law contrary to the
guidelines has been pointed out. [Para 53] [1549-A-B]
F
5. One of the grounds on which the appellant's
application was rejected was that Annexure I for Plot No.
569 (part) had not been supplied. In the original record
such an annexure had not been given. It was only in
respect of plot No. 559 and not for 569. Since the
G appellant did not annexe Annexure I in respect of plot No.
569 (part) along with her original application, there is no
legal infirmity in the authority's impugned order dated
28th June, 2006. [Paras 54 and 55] [1549-C-F; 1550-A-B]
('
6. If the scheme is final and binding upon everybody,
H merger of the plots is impermissible. Appellant does not
-
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1521
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
deny or dispute that having regard to the order passed • A
by the High Court in plot No. 559 was reserved for
recreational purposes, and, thus, the authority could not
have granted any permission for development of that
plot. Appellant being a developer was surely aware of the
aforementioned order of the High Court. Even if she did
8
not know thereabout, her contention that she was ready
and willing to develop the 1081 sq. m. occupied by the
chawls independently could not have been considered
by the Authority for more than one reason, firstly,
because such an application was not before the
authority; secondly, because her application was stated C
to be a composite application; and thirdly, because
another application in respect of the said land had
already been pending. [Para 61) [1552-C-F]
7.1. The authority having a statutory status should
have considered the application filed by the appellant at D
an early date. If the scheme was to be implemented with
sincerity as the policy decision professes, it was·
imperative for all the statutory authorities to take
appropriate action within a reasonable time. The.
Municipal Corporation also does not appear to be correct: E
in its stand that Annexure-11 issued in favour of the f
Respondent No.6 amounted to a 'No Objection Certificate',
and if that be so, the law as it then stood, the question of!
issuance of such certificate at that point of time so as to
bind it for all time to come evidently was not F
comprehended thereunder. In any view of the matter
such a 'No Objection Certificate' does not and cannot be
peJmitted to remain operative for a long time. It was in the
aforementioned backdrop that the authority also shouldhave made all endeavours to dispose of the appellant's G
application forthwith. [Para 63) [1553-E-G]
7 .2. As the appellant's application was defective and
'\
as the same could not have been taken into
consideration, the same could have been rejected at the
a.
threshold. There is absolutely no reason as to why
H
1522
SUPREME COURT ,REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A prompt action could not be taken by the authority. If a
person is not entitled to a relief he should be informed
thereabout at an early date so that if aggrieved thereby
he can take recourse to the remedies available to him in
law. [Para 63] [1553-G-H ; 1554-A-B]
B
Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari and Ors. v. Chief Executive
Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. 2006 (4) Mh.
L.J. 282 and Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 851, referred
to.
',..t '
'
..
C
Case Law Reference:
~.
2006 (4) Mh. L.J. 282
Referred to.
Para 56
2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 861
Referred to.
Para 56
.:..
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7435 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2006 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petitiori No.
2849 of 2006.
Shyam Diwan, Arvind V. Savant and Pravin H. Parekh,
AV. Rao, Prabhakar Parnam, Venkateswara Rao, Anumolu,
E
Sanjay V. Kharde, Arvind S. Avhad, Chandan Ramamurthi,
Sameer Parekh,,E.R. Kumar (for Mis. Parekh & Co.) S.C. Birla
Subrat Birla, S.G. Surana, AP. Medh, D.N. Mishra, Sanjay V.
Kharde and Asha G. Nair for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave gr~nted.
1. In the Metropolitan Town of Mumbai there exist a large
number of Slums. 55 % population of Greater Bombay does
not have authorized shelter. Nearly 2525 hectares of lands in
G the City are under slums. l,,ands occupied by slums are allocated
for different users, and are designated, reserved or allotted for
various existing or proposed public purposes in the draft or final
revised Development·Plan of Greater Bombay.
2. For rehabilitation of the slum dwellers living in distress
H
•
, -
I
-
-
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1523
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
the Legislature of Maharashtra enacted the Maharasht~a A
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the 1966 Act') in terms whereof respondent Nos. 2 and 4
are treated to be planning authorities as would appear from
Section 2(19) thereof.
3. Section 2(27) defines "regulation" to mean a regulation
B
made under Section 159 of this Act and includes zoning,
special development control regulations and other regulations
made as a part of a Regional Plan, Development plan, or town
planning scheme.
Grant or refusal of permission for development is governed
C
by Section 45, which reads thus:-
"45. Grant or refusal of permission.
(1) On receipt of an application under section 44 the
Planning .Authority niay, subject to the provisions of this Act:
by order in writing ...
D
(i)
grant the permission, unconditionally;
(ii)
grant the permission, subject to such general
or special condition as it may impose with
the previous approval of the State'
E
Government; or
(iii)
refuse the permission;
(2) Any permission granted under sub-section (1) with or,
without conditions shall be contained in a commencement
certificate in the prescribed form.
F
(3) Every order granting permission subject to conditions,
or refusing permission shall state the grounds for imposing
such conditions or for such refusal.
(4) Every order under sub:-section (1) shall be
communicated to the applicant in the manner prescribed
G
by regulations.
(5) If the Planning Authority does not communicate its
decision whether to grant or refuse permission to the
applicant within sixty days from the date of receipt of his
H
1524
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
application, or within sixty days from the date of receipt of
reply from the applicant in respect of any requisition made
by the Planning Authority, whichever is later, such
permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the
applicant on the date immediately following the date of
expiry of sixty days:
Provided that, the development proposal, for which
the permission was applied for, is strictly in conformity with
the requirements of all the relevant. Development Control
Regulations framed under this Act or bye-laws or
regulations framed in this behalf under any law for the time
being in force and the same in no way violates either the
provisions of any draft or final plan or proposals published
by means of notice, submitted for sanction under this Act:
Provided further that any development carried out in
pursuance of such deemed permission which is in
contravention of the provisions of the first proviso, shall be
deemed to be an unauthorized development for the
purposes of sections 52 to 57.
(6) The Planning Authority shall, within one month from the
date of issue of commencement certificate, forward duly
authenticated copies of such certificate and the sanctioned
building or development plans to the~ollector concerned."
4. Indisputably all Planning Authorities are conferred with
power to make Regulations as envisaged under Section 159
F of the 1966 Act.
G
H
5. The State of Maharashtra also framed Regulations
known as Development Control Regulations for Greater
Bombay, 1991 (OCR). Relevant portion of Regulations 5(3) and
33(10), read :-
'I
"5. Procedure for obtaining Development Permission and
Commencement Certificate.
(3) Information accompanying notice. -
(i) Key plan, site plan, etc. to accompany notice. -
The.notice shall be accompanied by the key plan
(location plan), a site plan, sub-division/lay-out plan,
/
-
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1525 ,
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
building plan, specifications and certificate of , A
supervision, ownership, title, etc. as prescribed in
clauses (ii) to (xiii) below.
(ii) Ownership title and area.- Every application for
development permission and commencement
certificate shall be accompanied by the following
documents for verifying the ownership and area etc.
of the land :-
(a)
attested copy or original sale/lease/power of '
attorney/enabling ownership document
wherever applicable."
B
c
33(10). Rehabilitation of slum dwellers through owners/
developers/cooperative housing societies. -For
redevelopment or restructuring of censused slums or such
slums whose structures and in habilitants whose names
appear in the Legislative Assembly voters' list of 1985 by
D
the owners/developers of the land on which such slums are ·
located or by Cooperative Housing Societies of such slum
dwellers a total floor space index of upto 2.5 may be
granted in accordance with schemes to be approved by
special permission of the Commissioner in each case.
E
Each scheme shall provide inter-alia the size of tenements
to be provided to the slum dwellers, the cost at which they
are to be provided on the plot and additional tenements
which the owner/developer can provide to accommodate/
rehabilitate slum dwellers/project affected persons from
other areas etc. in accordance with the 'guidelines laid
down in the Regulations in Appendix IV."
6. In terms of Regulation 33(10) of OCR, three annexures
were prescribed in Appendix IV.
F
7. Although all Planning and Development works were G
covered under the aforesaid Act, however, with a view to make
better provision for the improvement and clearance of slum
areas in the State and their redevelopment and for the
protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants, the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and 'H
1526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008) 17 S.C.R.
A
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971
Act') .was enacted by the State of Maharashtra. We may notice
a few provisions thereof.
·
·
y
Sections 2 (he) of the 1971 Act reads :-
B
"'Slum Rehabilitation Authority' means the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority or Authorities appointed by the
State Government under Section 3A."·
Section 2(hd) of the 1971 Act reads :-
" 'Slum Rehabilitation scheme' means the Slum
..
c
Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section 38 "
~
8. Chapter I-A, however, was inserted by Maharashtra Act
4 of 1996 providing for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
!
9. Sections 3A ; 38 ; relevant part of 30 ; 3 K and 3V read
as under:-
D
"3A.. Slum Rehabilitation Authority for implementing Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme :- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the foregoing provisions, th6 State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
,..._appoint an authority to be called the Slum Rehabilitation
E
Authority for such area or are~s as may be specified in
the notification; and different authorities may be appointed
for different areas.
(2) Every Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall consist of a
Chairman, a Chief Executiva Officer and fourteen other
F
members, all of whom shall be appointed by the State
Government.
(2A) Every Slum Rehabilitation Authority appointed under
sub-section ( 1) shall be a body corporate by the name of
"The ..................... Slum Rehabilitation Authority" and shall
G
have perpetual succession and common seal; with power
to contract, acquire, hold and dispose of property, both
11111
movable and immovable, and to do all things necessary
for the purposes of this Act, and may sue and be sued by
,.,.
its corporate name.
I
H
(3) Ti1e powers duties and functions of the Slum
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1527
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Rehabilitation Authority shallbe, -
A
(a)
to survey and review E:'.xisting position regarding
· ~
slum areas ;
-
(b)
to formulate schemes for rehabilitation of slum
areas;
8
(c)
to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
implemented;
(d)
to do all such other acts and things as may ba
necessary for achieving the objects of rehabilitation
of slums.
(4) The terms and conditions of appointment of the nonofficial members of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall
be such as may be specified by the State Government.
c
(5) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority may appoint
Committees consisting of its members and experts to o
. facilitate its working and speedy implementation of the
scheme prepared under section 38."
"3B Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. -
(1) the State
Government, or the Slum Rehabilitation Authority concerned
with the previous sanction of the State Government, shall
E
prepare a gen9ra! Slum· Rehabilitation SchP-me for the
areas specified under sub-section (1) of section 3A, for
Rehabilitation of slums and hutment colonies in such
areas.
(2) The General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme prepared
F
under sub-section ( 1) shall be published in the Official
Gazette, by the State Government or the concerned Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, as the case may be, as the
Provisional Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the area
specified under section 3A(1 ), for the information of general
G
public, inviting objections and suggestions, giving
reasonable period of not less than thirty days, for
submission of objections and suggestions, if any, in
respect of the said Scheme.
(3) The Chief Executive officer of the Slum Rehabilitation
H
1528
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
Authority shall consider the objections and suggestions, if
any, received within the specified period in respect of the
said Provisional Scheme and after considering the same,
and after carrying out such modifications as deemed fit or
necessary, finally publish the said scheme, with the
approval of the State Government or, as the same may be,
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in the Official Gazette, as
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
(4) The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme so notified under
sub-Section (3) shall, generally lay down the parameters
for declaration of any area as the slum rehabilitation area
and indicate the manner in which rehabilitation of the area
declared as the slum rehabilitation area shall be carried
out. In particular, it shall provide for all or any of ttie following
matters, that is to say,-·
0
(a) the parameters or guidelines for declaration of an area
as the slum rehabilitation area;
E
F
G
H
(b) basic and essential parameters of development of slum
rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme;
(c) provision for obligatory participation of the landholders
and occupants of the area declared as the slum
rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
in the implementation of the Scheme;
(d) provision relating to transit accommodation pending
development of the slum rehabilitation area and allotment
of tenements on development to the occUpants. of such
area, free of cost.
(e) scheme for development of the slum rehabilitation areas
· under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by the landholders
and occupants by themselves or through a developer and
the terms and conditions of such development; and the
option available to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for
taking up such development in the event of nonparticipation of the landholders or occupants;
(f) provision regarding sanction of Floor Space Index and
transfer of development rights; if any, to be made available
'
L
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1529
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
to the developer for development of the slum rehabilitation
A
area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme;
.~
(g) provision regarding non-transferable nature of
tenements for a certain period, etc."
"30. Application of other Chapters of this Act to Slum
B
Rehabilitation Area with modification. - On publication of
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under sub-section (1) of
section 38, the provisions of other Chapter of this Act shall
...
apply to any area declared as the slum rehabilitation area,
subject to the following modifications, namely:-
,
II
c
"3K. Power of State Government to issue directions. - (1)
The State Government may issue to the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority such general or special directions
as to policy as it may think necessary or expedient for D
carrying out the purposes of this Act and the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority shall be bound to follow and act
upon such directions.
-4
(2) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provision, if the State Government is of opinion that the
E
execution of any resolution or order of the Authority is in
contravention of, or in excess of, the powers conferred by
or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,
or is likely to lead to abuse or misuse of or to cause waste
of the Fund of the Authority, the State Government may, in
the public interest, by order in writing, suspend the
F.
~
execution of such resolution or order. A copy of such order
shall be sent forthwith by the State Government to the
Authority and its Chief Executive Officer.
(b) On receipt of the order sent as aforesaid, the Authority
shall be bound to follow and act upon such order."
G
_,
"3V. Power to make regulations. - The Slum Rehabilitation
"
Authority may make regulations consistent with this Act and
the rules made thereunder for all or any of the matters to
be provided under this Act by regulation and generally for
H
1530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
all other matters for which provision is, in the opinion of
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority necessary for the exercise
of its powers and the discharge of its functions under this
,_;- .
Act."
10. In view of Section 3A Slum Rehabilitation Authority was
B
appointed, which is a body corporate and having a perpetual
succession and common seal. Powers, duties and functions of
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority hae been laid down under the
said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 postulates preparation
•
of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme while sub-section (2) thereof
c provides for its publication in the official Gazette. Sμch a
"I
Scheme attains finality upon inviting objections and suggestions
and upon consideration of the same. Section 3C, however,
provides for declaration of slum rehabilitation areas which upon
publication in the official gazette is required to be given wide
D publicity in the manner as may be specifically specified by the
authority. Section 30 provides that on publication of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme the other provisions of the Act shall
apply to any area declared as the slum rehabilitation area
subject to modifications prescribed therein.
.,.._.
"
I
E
Section 13 of the Act provides for power of Competent
Authority to redevelop clearance area in the manner as stated
therein.
The State Government is empowered to issue directions
to the State Rehabilitation Authority in terms of Section 3K of
F
the Act. Section 3V empowers the State Rehabilitation Authority
to make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act
and the rules made thereunder for all or any of the matters
J. .
provided under the Act by regulations and for all other matters
for which provisions are, in the opinion of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, necessary for the exercise of its powers
G and the discharge of its function.
11. Concededly despite constitution of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority in the year 1977, no Regulations were
/
framed by it. Policy guidelines, however, were being issued
1 i
from time to time keeping in view the aforementioned objective
H
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1531
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
by the State. The manner of re-development of existing slums
A
occupying lands from residential commercial, industrial zones
.~
and lands reserved/designated/allotted for various public
purposes was divided into seven categories.
12. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, being one of the
Planning Authorities, had also issued circulars in respect of
B
development plan of Greater Bombay for implementation of
1
lands allocated to the various users designated/reserved by
slums etc. One of such circulars is dated 13th October, 1992
.;
whereby it was directed that all concerned should comply with
I
I
the requisitions prescribed in the said circular before forwarding c
the proposal for administrative and financial scrutiny for
obtaining the approval of the High Power Committee.
13. As stated earlier, in terms of DCR 33(10), annexures,
three in number, were prescribed in Appendix IV. Annexure-1
lays down the format for submitting the Scheme as per modified
D
scheme. Annexure-11 provides for a certificate in respect of the
'
persons residing in a slum within the purview of the said policy
decision. Annexure-111 provides for the details required to be
'> ~
furnished to assess the financial capability of the 'Developer'
to execute the SRA Scheme.
E
14. Appendix X of the DCR prescribes a Form of Notice
and the 'first application' required to be filed for development
in terms of Sections 44, 45, 58 and 69 of the 1966 Act and
erection of a building under Section 337 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 wherewith ownership
F
documents and property registered card were to be annexed.
~
15. The procedure for submission, processing and
approval of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, is as under:
"1. All slums and pavements-whose inhabitants' names and
structures appear in the electoral roll prepared with
G
reference to 1-1-1995 or a date prior thereto and who are
actual occupants of the hutments are eligible for the Slum
; ""
Rehabilitation Scheme.
2. 70% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum
or pavement in a viable stretch at one place have to show
H
1532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
their willingness to join Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and
come together to form a cooperative housing society of
all eligible hutment-dwellers through a resolution to that
y.
effect. The following resolution should be adopted:
(a) Resolution electing a chief promoter.
B
(b) Resolution giving the chief promoter authority to apply
for reservation of name for cooperative housing society.
(c) To collect share capital (Rs 50 per member for slum
societies) and Re 1 as entrance fee and to open account
tin Mumbai District Central Cooperative/Maharashtra State
c
Cooperative Bank Ltd. (any branch)
'
t
3. The chief promoter, office-bearers and the members of
the proposed Society should collect the documents such
as 7/12 extract and the PR card of the plot on which the
D
slum is situate. They should then get the plot surveyed/
measured and prepare map of the plot showing slum
structures therein with the help of surveyors attached to the
office of Additional Collector (Encroachment) or the Deputy
Collector (Encroachment) of the zone.
,.._.,,
E
4. While undertaking the survey, they should collect the
information of the proposed members/slum-dwellers and
fill up land occupied by the slum-dwellers, number and type
of structures such as residential, industrial, commercial,
amenity structures, etc. and the list of eligible and ineligible
occupants and consent of the slum-dwellers to join the
F
Scheme. Earlier the promoter/cooperative housing society
had to first approach the different competent authorities
namely Additional Collector for the slums on government
),
and private lands and the land-owning authorities for the
slums on different public authority lands, for obtaining
G
certified Annexure II, before they could put in application
for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme to SRA. As a simplification
measure, this procedure is now discontinued and Annexure
II format is now required to be filled by the promoter/
f '1
cooperative housing society itself for submitting building
proposal to SRA, so that the scrutiny of the proposal and
i
H
~

PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1533
.,,,.
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
certification of Annexure II can start simultaneously.
A
Annexure II needs to be submitted in duplicate. As a
.~
measure of further simplification, Additional Collector
(Encroachment) is being designated as the sole
competent authority for deciding eligibility and for taking
eviction action against non-participants in Slum
B
Rehabilitation Schemes.
5. The chief promoter and the office-bearers of the
.~
proposed society should then apply for name reservation
of the proposed cooperative housing society along with th~
f
self-prepared Annexure II and the required resolutions to c
the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. To
facilitate this, office of the Assistant Registrar has been
started in SRA itself. It is no longer necessary to approach
different offices of the Cooperation Department for this
purpose. The Assistant Registrar/SRA will issue a letter D
reserving the name for the proposed cooperative housing
society and permission to open a bank account in the
proposed society's name.
--. -+
6. While the above steps are being taken, the decision to
search a competent developer to act as a promoter has
E
to be taken up by the proposed cooperative housing
society of slum-dwellers. The society itself or an NGO/
developer/owner can take up Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
as a promoter.
7. The promoter so chosen has to enter into an agreement
F
with every eligible slum-dweller while putting up slum
~
rehabilitation proposal to SRA for approval. SRA is in the
process of trying to evolve standard formats for the
following four types of agreements required in the Scheme,
with the approval of the State Government.
(a) Consent-cum-agreement between the promoter and the G
slum-dwellers.
'
(b) Development rights/agreement to lease between the
promoter and the land-owning authority.
(c) Lease agreement between the land-owning authority
H
A
B
c
D
E
1534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS /
[2008] 17 S.C.F...
and the cooperative society of slum-dwellers.
(d) Lease agreement between the land-owning authority
and the cooperative society of freesale tenement buyers.
8. The promoter has also to appoint an architect in
consultation with the proposed cooperative housing
society of slum-dwellers to prepare the plans of
development of the slum area as per DCR-33(10). It is
expected that the architect ensures community
participation in preparation of the building plans. All
required documents such as building plan, layout plan, PR
card, etc. along with Annexure I, Annexure II and Annexure
Ill are to be submitted to SRA by the architect along with
an application for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. A
checklist of all such documents required for submission is
available in SRA office.
*
*
*
10. Annexure Ill is prescribed to assess the financial
capability of the promoter. The items contained in
Annexure Ill are self-explanatory. Keeping in view the
sensitivity of this information, it is kept strictly confidential
by SRA.
11. After a pre-security by a designated engineer of SRA,
to ensure completeness of the proposal submitted, so far
as documents are concerned, proposals are accepted.
Then a computerised file number is allotted to the Scheme
F
on payment of scrutiny fees which are charged at half (sic)
_ file number is allotted to the Scheme on payment of scrutiny
fees which are charged at half the rate of the Municipal
Corporation's general buffeting permission fees. Upon
acceptance, the scrutiny of Annexures I, II and Ill start
G
simultaneously in the Building Permission Wing, Eligibility
Certification Wing and Accounts & Finance Wing
respectively."
16. Indisputably the matter relating to development and
redsvelopment of slums used to be carried out by an Authority
H
known as Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The constitution of the
'
I
)
,,.
(
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1535
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Committee was dependent on the fact as to who was owner
A
of the land.
17. On or about 27th August, 2001 Slum Rehabilitation
Authority issued a circular in terms whereof Architect/Developer
or Office Bearer of the Society themselves were authorized to
fill up Annexure-11. But it was subject to scrutiny by the competent
B
authority. However, approval was to be granted only upon
receipt of certified copy of Annexure-11 from the competent
authority.
18. We have noticed hereinbefore that an application for
t
redevelopment of the slum areas could be filed by an owner of c
the land, non-governmental organization, a cooperative society
of the slum dwellers and/or a developer. Appellant herein is a
developer while respondent No.6 is a proposed CooperativeGroup Housing Society. Both were entitled to file applications
for development scheme of the slum areas. In terms of the
D
provisions of 1966 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder
Final Plot Nos. 559 and 569 were demarcated. Both the said
Final Plots were, however, tenanted or encroached.
~f
19. On or about 21st October, 1978 an order/Notification
was passed/issued under Section 3(a) of the Slum
E
Development Act declaring the said F.P. No.559 as a Slum
Land. Under the Development Plan for City of Mumbai the said
plot was proposed to be reserved for recreation ground which
was later confirmed in the year 1992 in terms of the final
development plan.
20. Appellant claimed ownership of plot No.559 of Town
F
Planning Scheme IV of Mahim Division admeasuring 5274.30
sq. mts. Out of which 1242.30 sq. mtrs. of land was acquired
by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. No
compensation is said to have been paid for the said acquisition.
G
21. F. Plot No.569, however, admeasures 9702 sq. mts.
.. I
Indisputably in the year 1995 respondent No.6 filed an
application for development of a part of Plot No.569 measuring
3205 sq. mtrs. of land. On 15th October, 1996 the Bombay
Municipal Corporation granted a 'no objection certificate' in its
H
1536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
favour in requisite form i.e. Annexure-11 in respect of F. Plot
>
No.569 admeasuring 3205 sq. mtrs. including the four chawl
which were known as Dholkwala Chawl. It gave all the
y-,
particulars of eligible Slum dwellers and had granted consent
to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
B
22. The plans submitted by the appellant as also the 6th
respondent cover an area of 1081 sq. mtrs. carved out of Final
Plot No.569. Scheme of the appellant was in respect of her F.
Plot No.559 and 1081 sq. mtrs. of land from F. Plot No. 569.
23. Appellant also filed an application and obtained a 'no
C objection certificate in respect of F. Plot No. 559.
24. Indisputably on receipt of the said ~·P,plication, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority called upon Bombay Municipal
Corporation to clarify whether a certificate as envisaged under
Annexure-11 in respect of 32 dwellers of Dholkawala Chawl
D could be issued. Bombay Municipal Corporation rejected the
said proposal stating that it had already issued Annexure-11 in
favour of respondent No.6 and all the 32 names had been
appearing therein. Indisputably a copy thereof had not been
forwarded to the appellant which1 as would be noticed
E
hereinafter, will have some bearing.
25. Indisputably again a composite building plan in favour
of respondent No.6 was approved on 2nd July, 2005. They were
directed to carry out construction activities.
26. Thereafter only appellant filed a writ application before
F
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was marked as
WP No.397 of 2006 inter alia for directions and/or orders to
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider her proposal, in
accordance with law, for sanctioning the Slum Scheme or
issuance of the Letter of Intent or a Commencement Certificate .
..
G
27. A Division Bench of the High Court by reason of an
order dated 29th March, 2006 passed in presence of counsel
for the parties thereto, directed the Authority to hear all the
parties including respondent No.6 herein and to pass
appropriate orders as per law. No interim order was passed
H despite the fact that by that time construction of the building had
)
PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF
1537
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
'
already commenced.
A
28. A petition for grant of special leave was filed in April,
... -~
2006 against the order dated 29th March, 2006 which was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11th May, 2006
permitting the appellant to obtain interim protection from the
High Court. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observation,
B
the appellant again filed a writ petition before the Bombay High
Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1473 of 2006 for grant of an
interim relief. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed
"
by an order 22nd June, 2006 recording the statement made
-f
by the Authority that a final order on the appellant's application c
would be passed within seven days.
29.