No Bonafide Intention To Redevelop Slum Area On Her Own: Bombay High Court Upholds Acquisition Of Woman's Property For Slum Rehabilitation

"It is not a position in law that irrespective of the conduct of the owner, irrespective of lack of bonafide, irrespective of neglect by owner and incapacity even after giving an opportunity to submit the scheme, the acquisition will be set aside", the court held.

Owner of the property has preferential or first right, to redevelop the property, under Sections 3B, 12(10), and 13(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The court noted that though she expressed willingness to undertake redevelopment, she never submitted a redevelopment scheme.

Therefore, the division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed the property owner's writ petition challenging acquisition of her property.

The property was declared as a slum in 1976. The court noted that in 40 the years since, neither the state authorities nor the owner did anything to develop it and give the occupants habitable conditions. The state took steps and the owner expressed willingness to redevelop only after the slum dwellers made an application. The neglect by the owners has led to the property lacking in basic amenities, the court said.

"…we find that public interest demands that the slum rehabilitation scheme should not be stalled at the instance of the owner, who has neglected her property resulting in the slum dwellers living in inhuman condition for years and who now seeks to further stall the redevelopment scheme, which is evident from the relief sought in the present Petition, without submitting any proposal for rehabilitation", the court stated.

In 2015, a society of slum dwellers requested the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to acquire the property to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme. In 2017, the property was declared a Slum Rehabilitation Area. The petitioner expressed to the SRA and he state her willingness to undertake the redevelopment. Despite this, the housing department of the government issued a notification acquiring the property under section 14(1) of the Act on the SRA CEO's recommendation. Hence the present petition.

As per the SRA report, there are about 246 structures on the property. The huts are partly permanent and partly temporary, the gutters are open and there is no adequate water supply for the occupants. There is no internal roads and the huts are congested. Further, there is no proper sunlight, fresh air, public street lights, and adequate toilets.

The court said that the petitioner had ample knowledge of the consequences of declaration of the property as slum and/or slum rehabilitation area. Despite being aware, she failed to submit scheme for redevelopment, the court observed.

The court rejected petitioner's submission that the notification is illegal because SRA did not issue notice asking the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme. No provision in the Act provides that the acquisition is illegal if SRA doesn't issue such notice, the court said.

The court said the relevant question is whether the owner has bonafide interest to develop the property and benefit the slum dwellers or if she is merely trying to create hurdles in the rehabilitation of slum dwellers.

The petitioner, in an affidavit, had stated that a developer had resolved to enter into an agreement with her for redevelopment of the property. The court noted the affidavit is silent on whether any further joint venture agreement was executed between the parties. From 2019 till March 2021, the petitioner did not have financial ability to undertake redevelopment of the property, the court noted.

The court further noted that the petitioner has sought to quash the acquisition notification rather than seeking to be permitted to submit a redevelopment scheme.

Under section 14 of the Act, the state government can acquire a property on recommendation from the SRA to redevelop any slum area after issuing show cause notice to the owner.

In the present case, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on August 11, 2021, and the petitioner filed detailed representation to the same. The court said that the impugned notification has been issued after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The notification records substantive satisfaction of the state government and hence the acquisition is legal, and no interference is warranted, the court held.

The court said that in the context of a beneficial legislation, it has to satisfy itself that its interference will serve the interest of justice. It has to balance completing rights of landowner and slum dwellers.

"At this stage, after 40 years of the declaration of the area as slum and especially when the slum dwellers are now looking for better living conditions, in view of the steps being taken by Respondent No.5-Developer, we are not inclined to set the clock back extending the wait of the slum dwellers indefinitely while the owner takes its own time to submit the scheme and implement it", the court held.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 19626 of 2022

Case Title – Deena Pramod Baldota v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 509