- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Balraj Tulsidas Pillai & Others v. State Of Maharashtra & Others
Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners challenged a notice dated 18 June 1996 issued by the State under section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("the said Act"). The petitioners advanced two principal grounds: (a) that section 14(1) permits acquisition only of land adjoining a slum area and not of the slum area itself, and therefore acquisition of the land in question (allegedly a slum area) under section 14(1) was bad in law; and (b) that the notice under section 14(1) was issued without following the procedural requirements of the said Act (in particular, the hearing mandated by section 5).
Procedural history disclosed in the opinion: an attempt to declare the area as slum by notification dated 16 September 1976 was overturned on appeal (Appeal No. 39 of 1986 allowed by the Maharashtra Slums Tribunal on 22 August 1986). A fresh notification under section 4(3) was issued on 30 September 1986, followed by a section 5 notice to Radhabai B. Pillai on 18 November 1986. Subsequent communications included letters dated 14 October 1993 and 5 November 1993 from the Deputy Collector, a letter dated 8 August 1994 informing the petitioners that steps for acquisition would be taken (received by petitioners on 11 August 1994), and ultimately the section 14(1) notice dated 18 June 1996. The Government's acquisition notification was dated 24 June 1996. The petitioners filed an appeal (Appeal No. 27 of 1997) which was dismissed on 21 October 1997. Possession was taken by the Government on or about 21 March 1998.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act permits acquisition of land that is the slum area itself, or is limited to land adjoining or surrounding a slum area (i.e., whether acquisition of the land in question under section 14(1) was invalid).
- Whether the State's issuance of the notice under section 14(1) was invalid for want of compliance with the procedural requirements of the Act—specifically, whether the Competent Authority was required to issue a notice under section 5 and afford the owners/occupiers an opportunity of hearing before making a representation to the State Government that would trigger acquisition under section 14(1).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended that, construed according to section 14(1), acquisition is permissible only of land adjoining a slum area and not of the slum area itself; thus acquiring the slum land under section 14(1) was legally impermissible.
- The petitioners contended that section 14(1) can be invoked only after a prior decision by the Competent Authority regarding the need for improvement or redevelopment, a decision that must be preceded by hearing the property owner under section 5 of the Act; in the present case, they argued that no such hearing under section 5 occurred prior to the section 14(1) action.
Respondents' Arguments
- Respondent Nos. 1–3 relied on the Deputy Collector's affidavit: they said notices under section 5 had been issued after declaration of the area as slum, petitioners had multiple opportunities to develop the property (including letters of 14 October 1993 and 5 November 1993), petitioners failed to take steps to develop, and only after such failure did the authorities proceed under section 14(1) and issue the acquisition notice.
- Respondent No. 4 argued that the powers under section 14(1) are not subject to exercise of powers under section 5 and, alternately, that irrespective of procedural arguments the petitioners had in fact been given sufficient opportunity to improve/develop and therefore cannot seek writ relief.
- Respondents also referred to precedent (both a Division Bench decision and apex court authority) to support legality of acquisition and to address related points about use of acquired land.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Akhtar Hasan Rizvi v. The Additional Collector (Enc) and Controller of Slums (Division Bench, Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1999; unreported; delivered 3 Oct 2000) | Held that a conjoint reading of sections 4, 11, 12 and 14 shows land over which a slum is situate may be acquired under the Slum Act; section 14(1) must be read to include land within, adjoining or surrounded by slum area. | The Court treated this decision as settling the first issue; it relied on that decision to reject the petitioners' first ground that section 14(1) cannot apply to slum land itself. |
| Ajanta Warehousing Company v. The Additional Collector (Enc) Bombay City (Single Judge, order dated 25 Mar 1997) | Observed that the Competent Authority is entitled to declare an area as slum area if amenities are not provided by the landlord to the occupants. | The Court noted this decision but concluded that it did not assist either party materially in resolving the issues before it. |
| Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501 (Apex Court) | Decision relating to the powers of the State Government concerning utilization of acquired land for purposes other than that for which it was acquired. | The Court observed this apex court decision but found it not helpful to the parties on the specific questions before the Court in this petition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in two principal stages corresponding to the petitioners' grounds of challenge.
1. Interpretation of section 14(1) and the first ground: The Court accepted the Division Bench's unreported decision in Akhtar Hasan Rizvi and read sections 4, 11, 12 and 14 together to conclude that section 14(1) may be read to permit acquisition of land on which a slum exists as well as land adjoining or surrounded by a slum. On that basis the Court found the petitioners' first ground (that the slum land itself could not be acquired under section 14(1)) was foreclosed and rejected that challenge.
2. Procedural challenge and the second ground: The Court carefully examined the statutory scheme. It set out the text of section 14(1) (including sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (2)) and sections 15(1)–(4), and then analysed section 5(1)–(2) (and section 5-A's scope of improvement works). The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that deprivation of immovable property requires compliance with the procedure of law and basic principles of natural justice. Although section 14(1) does not expressly provide for prior notice to interested parties, the Court held that the Competent Authority could not form the opinion necessary to make the representation to the State Government without first hearing the persons to be affected; therefore, the notice and hearing requirement in section 5 must be read into the process that culminates in section 14(1) acquisition.
Applying this legal framework to the facts disclosed in the record and the Deputy Collector's affidavit, the Court found:
- There had been an earlier section 4(3) notification (30 Sept 1986) and a section 5 notice to Radhabai B. Pillai on 18 Nov 1986—an uncontested factual assertion in the respondents' affidavit.
- The respondents had repeatedly communicated the requirement of development to the petitioners (letters of 14 Oct 1993 and 5 Nov 1993) and the petitioners failed to improve or develop the property.
- The Additional Collector by letter dated 8 Aug 1994 informed the petitioners that steps for acquisition under section 14(1) would be taken; that communication was received by the petitioners on 11 Aug 1994.
- Thereafter the Government issued the acquisition notification (24 June 1996) and the formal section 14(1) notice (18 June 1996 as referenced), followed by possession being taken on or about 21 March 1998.
On these facts the Court concluded that the hearing requirements and the notice to interested persons, as contemplated by section 5 and the basic principles of natural justice, had in substance been complied with. The petitioners did not dispute receipt or validity of the earlier notices or contest that the notice to Radhabai B. Pillai gave knowledge to the petitioners (who are her husband and children). Accordingly, there was "hardly any scope" to contend non-compliance with section 5(1) or (2).
The Court further addressed the petitioners' concern that the acquired land might be disposed of contrary to the acquisition's stated purpose. It noted the Deputy Collector's affidavit paragraph 20 which stated the Government retained possession and intended to hand over possession to tenants once their society was duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Court observed that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 15 permit the Competent Authority or the Government (with approval) to carry out redevelopment itself or to transfer land by lease to co-operative housing societies of occupants; on that statutory basis the respondents' stated intention did not attract fault.
Finally, the Court found that neither Ajanta Warehousing Company's decision nor the Apex Court decision in Municipal Corporation's case materially assisted the parties on the controlling points; having assessed the statutory requirements and the factual record, the Court dismissed the petition.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is DISMISSED. The Court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs, but granted continuation of the interim order for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The State's action under section 14(1) to acquire the land was upheld as valid on the facts of this case; possession was taken by the Government and the petitioners' challenge to the acquisition failed.
- Procedural principle affirmed in this opinion: Although section 14(1) does not expressly spell out a prior hearing, the Court recorded that the Competent Authority's decision to make a representation to the State Government (which triggers acquisition) must follow a decision-making process in which affected owners/occupiers are afforded an opportunity to be heard—typically by the section 5 notice and process—because basic principles of natural justice and the requirement of following procedure of law cannot be bypassed. On the facts, the Court found such procedural steps had, in substance, been taken.
- Disposition of the land and transfer to occupants: The Court accepted that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 15 permit the Competent Authority or the Government to carry out redevelopment or to transfer/lease land to co-operative housing societies of occupants; the respondents' stated intention to hand over possession to tenants upon formation/registration of a society was consistent with those statutory powers and did not constitute impermissible disposal contrary to the acquisition notice (on the material before the Court).
- No new precedent was announced by this opinion; the Court applied existing statutory interpretation and relied upon prior decisions where relevant.
- Interim relief: The Court granted continuation of the interim order for four weeks from the date of the order (as requested by petitioners and despite respondents' objection).
This summary is confined strictly to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not add, infer or extrapolate beyond that text.
Khandeparkar R.M.S, J.:— Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners challenge the notice dated 18th June, 1996 issued by the respondent Government under section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, hereinafter called as “the said Act”, on two grounds. Firstly, that considering the provisions of section 14(1) of the said Act, the acquisition is permissible of the area adjoining to the slum area and not the slum area itself and the land in question being slum area itself, the decision to acquire the land under section 14(1) of the said Act is bad in law. Secondly, that the notice under section 14(1) of the said Act has been issued without following the necessary procedure prescribed under the said Act to invoke the powers under section 14(1) of the said Act. As regards the first ground of challenge, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 has drawn attention to the unreported decision of the Division Bench in the matter of (Akhtar Hasan Rizvi v. The Additional Collector (Enc) and Controller of Slums)1, in Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1999 delivered on 3rd October, 2000 wherein, it has been held that “A conjoint reading of sections 4, 11, 12 and 14, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the land over which the slum is situate may be acquired under the provisions of the Slum Act. In fact, without acquiring the slum area properly, in accordance with law, it would be impossible to give effect to any scheme under the Slum Act. We are, therefore, of the considered view that under section 14(1), the State Government may acquire the land on which the slum exists, and the section must be so read as to include any land within adjoining or surrounded by slum area.” Apparently, the issue as to whether the area comprised under the slum area itself can be acquired in terms of the provisions contained in section 14(1) of the said Act or not has been well settled by the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court and considering the same, the first ground of challenge to the acquisition of the land is no more available to the petitioners in the case in hand. The first ground of challenge is, therefore, rejected.
3. As regards the second ground of challenge, it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that section 14(1) of the said Act requires prior decision of the Competent Authority regarding the need for improvement or redevelopment of the area and only thereupon the Government, on recommendation by the Competent Authority based on such decision, can proceed to acquire the land. In order to arrive at the said decision, the owner of the property must be heard bearing in mind the provisions of section 5 of the said Act. In that connection, attention is also drawn to an order of the learned Single Judge, as he then was of this Court, in the matter of (Ajanta Warehousing Company v. The Additional Collector (Enc) Bombay City)2, passed on 25th March, 1997, wherein, it was observed that the Competent Authority under the provisions of the said Act is entitled to declare an area as slum area if amenities are not provided by the landlord to the occupants. It was the further contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that, in the case in hand, prior to issuance of the notice under section 14(1) of the said Act, no steps were taken to hear the petitioners in terms of the provisions of section 5 of the said Act, and, therefore, the action under section 14(1) is bad in law. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 drawing attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the authorities did issue notice under section 5 after declaration of an area as slum area and also had given enough opportunity to the petitioners to improve and/or develop the area and only after failure on the part of the petitioners to carry out improvement and/or development, the respondents invoked the powers under section 14(1) of the said Act and issued the said notice and, therefore, it cannot be found fault with. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the provisions of section 14(1) are not subject to the exercise of powers under section 5 of the said Act and the decision to acquire the land under section 14(1) of the said Act cannot be found fault with on account of the absence of proceedings under section 5 of the said Act. In any case, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 submitted that, the petitioners having failed to improve and/or develop the property inspite of the sufficient opportunity having been given in that regard, as is revealed from the affidavit of Deputy Collector filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioners are not entitled to seek interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction in relation to the notice under section 14(1) of the said Act. Attention was also sought to be drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.)3, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 501,
4. Section 14(1) of the said Act provides that where on any representation from the Competent Authority it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the authority to execute any work of improvement in relation to any slum area or any building in such area or to redevelop any clearance area, it is necessary that any land within adjoining or surrounded by any such area should be acquired, the State Government may acquire the said land by publishing in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of the said section provided that, before publishing such notice, the State Government, or as the case may be, the Collector may call upon by notice the owner of, or any other person who, in its or his opinion may be interested in, such land to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired with reasons, therefore, to the Collector within the period specified in the notice and the Collector shall with all reasonable dispatch forward any objections so submitted together with his report in respect thereof to the State Government and on considering the report and the objections, if any, the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit. Sub-section (1-A) of section 14 provides that, the acquisition of land for any purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be public purpose and sub-section (2) thereof provides that when a notice as aforesaid, is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 15(1) of the said Act further provides that where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (2) of section 14, the Collector may, by notice in writing order any person who may in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to him, or to any person duly authorised by him in that behalf within 30 days of the service of the notice, and sub-section (2) thereof provides that if any person fails or refuses to comply with an order under sub-section (1), the Collector or such authorised person may take possession of the land, and may for that purpose use such force as may be reasonably necessary. Sub-section (3) of section 15 provides that where any land is taken possession of as aforesaid, the Collector shall make that land available to the Competent Authority and thereupon the Competent Authority may, either itself carry out any order of demolition or execution of the work of improvement or of redevelopment or entrust, in accordance with the provisions of section 10-a, the work of improvement or other works referred to in that section to any other agency including the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976, or to a Co-operative Housing Society of the occupants on such land or occupants of any other area which has been declared as slum area under section 4. further sub-section (4) provides that the State Government or the Collector, with the previous approval of the State Government may, subject to such terms and conditions, as the State Government considers expedient for securing the purposes of the said Act, transfer by way of lease such land with or without the improvement and other works carried out thereon, to the Co-operative Housing Societies of such occupants.
5. Plain reading of the above referred provisions of law from the said Act would disclose that, the powers under section 14(1) of the said Act can be exercised by the State Government pursuant to the receipt of the representation by the Competent Authority expressing the need of such land so as to enable the authority to execute any work of improvement in relation to any slum area or any building in such area or to redevelop any clearance area. Needless to say that the Competent Authority would not be able to arrive at any such decision unless the persons who are going to be affected by the decision to acquire the land are heard in the matter. It is well settled that nobody can be deprived of his immovable property without following procedure of law and without complying with the basic principles of natural justice. Being so, even though the provisions of law contained in section 14(1) do not provide for any prior notice to the interested parties, such a provision will have to be read in section 14(1). That being also the requirement for compliance of basic principles of natural justice, even though there is no specific provision contained in section 14(1) for issuance of such notice, it will be necessary either for the Competent Authority or the State Government to hear the interested parties before taking final decision regarding the acquisition of the land. The point, however, which is sought to be raised by the petitioners, is that it is not mere a notice in relation to the acquisition of the land but the notice, as contemplated under section 5(1) of the said Act, will have to be issued and the owner should be heard prior to any decision by the Competent Authority in relation to necessity of such acquisition of the land to enable the authority to cause improvement or redevelopment.
6. Section 5(1) of the said Act provides that where the Competent Authority is satisfied that any slum area or any part thereof is capable of being improved, at a reasonable expense so as not be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area, it may serve upon the owner or owners and every mortgagee of the properties in that area or any part thereof a notice informing them of its intention to carry out such improvement works as in its opinion are necessary and asking each of them to submit his objections or suggestions, if any, to the Competent Authority, within 30 days from the date of such notice, and a copy of the said notice shall also be displayed at some conspicuous places in the area for the information of the occupiers thereof and for giving them also an opportunity to submit their objections or suggestions, if any, and on such display of the notice, the owners occupiers and all other persons concerned shall be deemed to have been duly informed of the matters stated therein. Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act provides that after considering the objections and suggestions received within the time, as provided under sub-section (1), from the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned, the Competent Authority may decide and proceed to carry out the improvement works with or without modification or may postpone them for a certain period or cancel the intention to undertake the works. Section 5-A enumerates various items which can be considered as improvement works.
7. provisions of section 5(2) of the said Act therefore disclose that the Competent Authority may decide to carry out the improvement works and further can proceed to carry out the work only after considering the objections and suggestions received from the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned in reply to the notice issued under sub-section (1). In other words, the decision to cause improvement and to effect such improvement cannot be without giving an opportunity to the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned, and such opportunity has to be given in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act: Undoubtedly, section 14(1) speaks of the decision to acquire the land on representation by the Competent Authority regarding the need of such land for the purpose of carrying out and executing the works of improvement or redevelopment. In other words, provisions of section 5(2) of the said Act reveals that the Competent Authority has to hear the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned prior to deciding the need of improvement and when such improvement cannot be carried out without acquisition of the land to make a representation in that regard to the Government pursuant to which the Government can proceed to acquire land for such purpose. Being so, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the decision of the Competent Authority regarding the need for improvement has to precede the action by the State Government under section 14 to acquire the land and such a decision of the Competent Authority cannot be without giving an opportunity to the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned to put forth their say in the matter. The conclusion, which is to be arrived at, in the circumstances, is that while in relation to the decision of the need for improvement, the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned must have an opportunity of being heard prior to such decision in terms of the provisions of section 5 and the interested persons are entitled to have such opportunity of being heard in the matter before the decision for acquisition of land for the purpose of giving effect to the improvement.
8. Undisputedly, the facts of the case in hand are that an attempt on the part of the respondent-authority to declare an area in question as slum area by notification dated 16th September, 1976 was proved futile consequent to Appeal No. 39 of 1986 at the instance of the petitioners being allowed by the Maharashtra Slums Tribunal on 22nd August, 1986. However, thereafter, fresh notification under section 4(3) of the said Act had been issued on 30th September, 1986. That was followed by a notice under section 5 to Smt. Radhabai B. Pillai on 18th November, 1986. Further, on 8th August, 1994, a notice was served on the owners of the land and thereafter, the notice under section 14(1) was issued on 18th June, 1996.
9. The affidavit by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 discloses that before issuance of notice under section 14(1) on 18th June, 1996, from July, 1993 onwards, the petitioners had been assuring about the development of the property and in that connection, the Deputy Collector had also sent two letters to the petitioners viz., 14th October, 1993 and 5th November, 1993 informing the requirement of the development. However, the petitioners did not avail the said opportunity and did not carry out any development in the property. It was only after failure on the part of the petitioners to carry out the development, the Additional Collector, Murribai, by his letter dated 8th August, 1994 communicated the petitioners that the steps for acquisition under section 14(1) would be taken. The necessary representation was made by the concerned respondent to the Government and accordingly by the notification dated 24th June, 1996, the property was sought to be acquired. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the communication dated 8th August, 1994 was received by the petitioners on 11th August, 1994. The petitioners thereupon filed appeal being Appeal No. 27 of 1997 before the Maharashtra Slums Tribunal which came to be dismissed by order dated 21st October, 1997. The possession of the property was taken over by the Government on or about 21st March, 1998.
10. The above facts apparently disclose that the notice under section 14(1) of the said Act was preceded by the notice dated 8th August, 1994 in relation to the proposed acquisition, and after considering the objections received in relation thereto, the Government decided to acquire the land. Being so, considering the provisions of section 14 regarding the necessity of the interested persons being heard having been complied with and that being apparent from the notice itself and the contents thereof having not been disputed by the petitioners, it is clear that there has been no fault on the part of the respondents in taking action under section 14(1) in that regard. It is pertinent to note that though the notice dated 18th June, 1996 discloses the name of the owner, which is in the name of Radhabai B. Pillai, it is not in dispute that the notice received by her was sufficient knowledge to the petitioners herein, who are undisputedly the petitioner No. 1 being husband and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being the children of the said Radhabai B. Pillai. Itis not the case of the petitioners that the notice to said Radhabai B. Pillai was not a notice to the petitioners. Being so, as far as the requirement of basic principles of natural justice for invoking the powers of acquisition of land under section 14(1) has been duly complied with.
11. As regards the compliance of provisions of section 5 of the said Act prior to the decision for acquisition of land, the narration of facts stated above discloses that subsequent to the declaration of an area as slum area by notification dated 30th September, 1986, the respondents did issue a notice to Radhabai B. Pillai on 18th November, 1986. There is a solemn statement in that regard in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 which has been neither challenged nor disputed by the petitioners. Also, it is not the case of the petitioners that the notice issued to Radhabai B. Pillai on 18th November, 1986 was not a valid notice to the petitioners or that the petitioners had no knowledge about the said notice. In the circumstances, therefore, there is hardly any scope for the petitioners to contend that there was failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the provisions of section 5(1) or (2) of the said Act. Added to this, the affidavit, as already stated above, discloses that there was sufficient opportunity given to the petitioners to cause development in the area in question and even in that regard, repeated letters were addressed to the petitioners, once on 14th October, 1993 and another on 5th November, 1993 and that there was no sign of any action ??? the part of the petitioners in the matter of improvement or development of ??? property. Added to this, the petitioners were also given notice on 8th August, 1994 which was received by the petitioners on 11th August, 1994 disclosing the intention to proceed for acquisition of land for the purpose of improvement. Being so, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that there was failure, on behalf of the respondent-authority in complying with the provisions of the said Act before arriving at a decision for acquisition of land under section 14(1) of the said Act.
12. It is also sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that consequent to the acquisition, the respondents are trying to dispose of the land contrary to the intention disclosed in the acquisition notice and in that regard, attention is drawn to the contents of paragraph 20 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Collector, Mumbai. In paragraph 20 thereof, the Deputy Collector has stated that “after possession of the said property was taken over, the tenants of the structure standing on the said land, again approached the additional Collector, SRA, Bandra, Mumbai, and the said tenants were advised on 24th April, 1998 inter alia, that the proposal be submitted to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority by the said tenants. I say that the tenants had already formed a society, but the society has not been duly registered by the tenants as yet. I, therefore, say and submit that possession of the property is still retained by the Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, and possession thereof would be handed over to the tenants as soon as the said society duty formed by the tenants is duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.” As already stated, above, Sub-section (3) of section 15 of the said Act empowers the Competent Authority to carry out the improvement or development of works by itself or through the agency as specified thereunder and further sub-section (4) empowers the Government or the Collector with previous approval of the Government to transfer the land by way of lease with or without the improvement to the Co-operative Housing Societies of the occupants of the land. Considering the said provisions of law, no fault can be found with the stand taken by the respondents in paragraph 20 of the affidavit-in-reply, in that regard.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the order passed in Ajanta Warehousing Company's case by the learned Single-Judge of this Court (as he then was) on 25th March, 1997, nor the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are of no help to either of the parties. While the decision in Ajanta Warehousing Company's case was on the point that the Competent Authority is entitled to declare an area as slum area, if amenities are not provided by the landlord to the occupants, the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation's case was relating to the powers of the State Government pertaining to the utilization of the acquired land for the purpose other than the one for which it was acquired. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
14. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioners requests for continuation of the interim order for a period of four weeks which is objected by the learned Advocates for the respondents. However, I am inclined to grant continuation of the interim order for a period of four weeks from today. Order accordingly.
15. Petition dismissed.
Alert