Page 1

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. 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 2

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 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 3

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.  

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 4

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 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 5

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 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 6

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 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 7

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.    

14. With the aforesaid directions, these appeals are disposed of.   

No costs.      .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; September 29, 2016.