1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6070 OF 2014

ADARSH ESTATE SAHAKARI GRIHA NIRMAN    SANSTHA MARYADIT (PROPOSED)     .... PETITIONER(S)                             

              VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.         ....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6204 OF 2014

O R D E R   

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Both  these  Special  Leave  Petitions  are

challenging the judgment and Order dated 20th January,

2014 passed by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court of

Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2009

along with Notice of Motion No. 205 of 2011 and Writ

Petition No. 1596 of 2009 along with Notice of Motion No.

206 of 2011.

2. The facts in brief leading to the present special

leave petitions are as under.

2

The petitioner in SLP (C) No. 6070 of 2014 is a

society (hereinafter referred to as “Adarsh”) of slum

dwellers of plot bearing CTS No. 601, having a total area

admeasuring 704.30 sq. mts. The petitioner in SLP (C) No.

6204 of 2014 is a society (hereinafter referred to as

“Saidham”) of slum dwellers of plots bearing CTS Nos.

595, 596 and 602 having a total area admeasuring 2247.20

sq. mts. The respondent no. 5 in both the special leave

petitions,  namely,  Maruti  Nagar  Co-operative  Housing

Society, is also a society of slum dwellers (hereinafter

referred to as  “Maruti”) situated on plots bearing CTS

Nos. 585, 604 and 605, having a total area admeasuring

6627.50 sq. mts. The said plots on which the aforesaid

three  slums  are  situated  are  owned  by  the  Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Respondent no. 4 in both

the special leave petitions (hereinafter referred to as

“the  Corporation”).  The  General  Body  of  Maruti

(Respondent  no.  5  herein)  had  passed  a  resolution

regarding  implementation  of  Slum  Rehabilitation  Scheme

and appointed a developer. Thereafter, on 06th September,

2005,  Maruti  submitted  a  proposal  for  a  Scheme  of

rehabilitation of slum dwellers. In furtherance of the

proposal  submitted  by  it,  respondent  Nos.  3  and  4

initiated  proceedings  for  verifying  Annexure-II,  i.e.

list  of  eligible  and  non-eligible  slum  dwellers.  On

3

8th March, 2006, the Corporation forwarded Annexure-II to

Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as

the “SRA”). However, it appears that, thereafter, several

complaints were received regarding frauds being committed

in  the  preparation  of  Annexure-II.  The  SRA  passed  an

order  on  20th December,  2006  observing  therein,  that

Annexure-II was issued on account of bogus and fraudulent

documents filed by Maruti. The Corporation, therefore,

cancelled Annexure-II.  

3. In the meantime, both the petitioners, Adarsh as

well  as  Saidham,  had  submitted  Slum  Rehabilitation

proposals,  in  respect  of  slum  dwellers  on  the  plots

mentioned hereinabove along with the consent of the slum

dwellers and a General Body resolution. The SRA after

considering  the  proposal  of  the  petitioners,  directed

acceptance of the scrutiny fee, which is duly paid by

both of them. On 11th July, 2008 the Assistant Municipal

Commissioner addressed a communication to the SRA stating

therein,  that  after  calling  required  documents  from

Maruti  they  would  scrutinize  and  process  a  revised

Annexure-II  on  merits.  In  response  to  the  said

communication, the SRA informed the Corporation about the

letter of the Corporation dated 16th September, 2006 by

which they had informed that Annexure-II issued to Maruti

4

stood cancelled on account of fraud. On 29th July, 2008

the SRA addressed a letter requesting the Corporation to

scrutinize  the  draft  Annexure-II  submitted  by  the

Petitioners.  On  6th October  2008,  SRA  informed  the

Corporation  that  the  proposal  of  the  Petitioners  for

issuance  of  Annexure-II  be  held  to  be  treated  as

acceptable. It was also informed that since the proposal

of  Maruti  had  already  been  rejected,  the  question  of

issuing any Annexure-II in its favour did not arise.  

4. In  November,  2008,  Maruti  filed  two  separate

applications  to  the  High  Power  Committee  against  the

Petitioners, requesting that the SRA should not sanction

the proposal submitted by the Petitioners and that its

proposal  should  be  reconsidered.  Vide  Order  dated  7th

February, 2009 the High Power Committee set aside the

Order passed by the SRA dated 30th December, 2006, by

which the SRA had rejected the proposal of Maruti.

5. The orders passed by the SRA were assailed before

the Bombay High court in Writ Petition Nos. 1595 of 2009

and  1596  of  2009  filed  by  Adarsh  and  Saidham

respectively. Vide Order dated 11th January, 2010 Rule

was granted in those petitions. Liberty was also granted

to the petitioners to apply for relief in case of any

adverse  action.  In  the  meantime,  the  Corporation  had

5

published  a  draft  Annexure-II  in  favour  of  Maruti.

Accordingly on 7th May, 2011 the SRA fixed a hearing on

23rd May,  2011  for  cancellation  of  the  proposal  of

Petitioners. The Petitioners, therefore, moved Notices of

Motion before the High Court. By an Order dated 20th May,

2011  the  High  Court  granted  interim  relief  to  the

Petitioners  thereby,  staying  the  hearing  fixed  before

C.E.O., SRA. Vide subsequent Orders dated 08th November,

2011 and 22nd November, 2011, the High Court permitted

the SRA to proceed with the hearing and further directed

that the decision, if any, which would be taken shall not

be implemented, till further Orders are passed by the

High  Court.  Vide  Order  dated  5th March,  2012  the  SRA

rejected the proposals of the Petitioners and directed

that the proposal of Maruti be processed further on the

basis  of  revised  Annexure-II,  to  be  issued  by  the

Corporation.  Finally,  by  an  Order  dated  20th January,

2014 both the Writ Petitions were rejected by the High

Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these

Special Leave Petitions.

6. During the pendency of hearing, the SRA as well

as Maruti had filed Affidavit stating therein, that each

of the seven plots are capable in law of independent

schemes. This court, therefore, directed the SRA by an

6

Order  dated  16th February,  2018,  to  submit  a  draft

proposal for settlement, in terms of its affidavit and

submit  the  same  for  approval  by  other  parties.  In

accordance with the Order passed by this court, the SRA

has  circulated  a  draft  terms  of  settlement  proposing

therein, that the Corporation should issue independent

Annexure-II  to  all  the  three  societies,  i.e.  Adarsh,

Saidham  and  Maruti  for  their  respective  independent

plots.  It is further proposed that Adarsh and Saidham,

the  petitioners  herein,  shall  either  jointly  develop

their  properties  or  develop  their  properties

independently. It is further proposed that, in the event

Adarsh was to develop the property separately, since it

was not having a direct access, it should be provided an

access by a road having a width of 9 meters. It was

further proposed that Maruti should develop its property

independently. Accordingly I.A. No. 97692/2018 came to be

filed by the SRA. An affidavit dated 21st July, 2018 which

came to be filed on 25th July, 2018 by Maruti stating

therein,  that  it  has  taken  a  conscious  decision,  to

accept the terms of settlement submitted by the SRA so

that  all  the  three  proposals  can  independently  be

developed by the respective societies. Similar affidavit

came to be filed by both the Petitioners, accepting the

terms  of  settlement  as  proposed  by  the  SRA.  The

7

Respondent-Corporation has also filed an affidavit dated

28th August, 2018 that it has no objection for accepting

the terms of settlement as proposed by the SRA.  

7. Ordinarily  the  matter  should  have  ended  here.

However, Maruti filed I.A. No. 11905 of 2019 thereby,

praying  for  permitting  it  to  withdraw  its  Additional

Affidavit dated 21st July,  2018 i.e. giving consent to

the settlement. Immediately after filing the I.A., 214

slum dwellers of Maruti (Respondent No. 5 herein) had

addressed  a  letter  dated  29th January,  2019  to  the

Registry of this Court stating therein, that they had

never opposed the terms of settlement proposed by the SRA

and  expressly  recorded  their  consent.  Since  it  was

contested  before  this  court  by  the  Petitioners  that

letter dated 11th October, 2018 purported to withdraw the

consent,  originally  contained  only  six  names  and  the

other names, which have been added to that letter are by

simply  plucking  them  from  the  letter  dated  30th May,

2018, this court appointed Shri Ashish Wad, Advocate, who

was appearing for the Municipal Corporation, to act as a

Local Commissioner.  

8. The Local Commissioner has submitted his report

on  9th July,  2019.  A  perusal  of  the  report  would

categorically show, that letter dated 11th October 2018

8

was  not  signed  by  172  slum  dwellers  but  only  by  6

persons.

9. Taking into consideration all these aspects of

the matter, it is clear that letter dated 11th October,

2018 thereby seeking to withdraw the consent which was

already given to the terms of settlement is a fabricated

document, containing only six signatures and rest of the

names have been plucked out from the letter dated 30th

May, 2018. Apart from that, we also find that on account

of litigation between the three societies the development

of the project is lingering from 2005 and no progress has

taken place for a period of more than 14 years. The slum

dwellers  residing  in  the  slums  have  been  deprived  of

shifting to a decent accommodation. We further find, that

if all the 3 societies are permitted to be developed

independently, no prejudice would be caused to any of

slum dwellers. On the contrary, in our considered view,

the settlement arrived at between the parties, and which

was already accepted by all the stakeholders, is fair and

reasonable and in interest of the slum dwellers of all

the three societies.  

10. In that view of the matter I.A No. 11905/2019 is

rejected.

9

11. I.A. No. 97692/2018 is allowed. The Special Leave

Petitions are disposed of in terms of settlement dated

16th April,  2018  marked  as  Annexure-II  to  I.A.  No.

97692/2018.

12. The parties to bear their own costs.

...................J.                              [S.A. BOBDE]

...................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

...................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 8, 2019.