First Appeal No.229 of 2013

26th September, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. MIHIR S. RAJE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. GEETA JOGLEKAR, Mr. CHEERAG BALSARA, Mr.ASHRAF DIAMONDWALA, Mr. SWAPNIL BANGUR, Mr. HAMID AHMED, DIVYA SHAH

Cases Cited:
Pramila Suman Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2009 ALL SCR 1976=Civil Appeal No. 7435/2008, Dt.19/12/2008 [Para 4]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard submissions at the Bar. Perused impugned oral Judgment by the Trial court. The appeal is directed against the order passed below Notice of Motion No. 2224 of 2012 taken out by Defendant no.4 in Long cause Suit no. 2734 of 2009 with the prayer in the N/M was for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 or Return of the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. The suit was disposed of as infructuous, on the ground that the building is completed and number of the plaintiffs had taken possession of the suit premises in suit structure situated at Dholkawala Chawl, a part of FP No.569, TPS IV, Mahim Division, Kakasahib Gadgil Cross lane, Dadar (West), Mumbai-28.

2. Learned Judge of the City Civil court held that reliefs claimed in the plaint are infructuous because the plaintiffs have already entered into agreements with defendant no.4 and agreed for the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme and accepted the compensation /rent for scheme. The scheme was declared as legal by the Apex Court, therefore prayers in the plaint can not be entertained. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs are proxy litigants put up by one Pramila Thakur, who had filed many writ Petitions in this regard and had also filed Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court to challenge sanctioning of slum rehabilitation scheme which were disposed of.

3. Building has been completed in accordance with the sanctioned scheme for slum rehabilitation and some of the plaintiffs beneficiaries are already occupying the premises allotted to them barring the few who have been put up as proxy litigants for Pramila Thakur. The object of early completion of the building in execution of the slum rehabilitation scheme is to provide shelter to the poor and marginalized persons as early as possible and without undue interference from ill motivated proxy litigants. Early implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme( SRS ) is in the larger interest of poor shelter less people. Trial Court is justified to remove the roadblock in the form of suit seeking to restrain the completion of the Slum rehabilitation Scheme which is otherwise duly sanctioned according to law. High power committee have been constituted by the State Government to oversee the implementation of the SRS. Hence the remedy to institute the civil suit and to allow it to continue for long years of normal course of the suit in City of Mumbai need not be encouraged when the aggrieved person has remedy to approach the high power committee constituted for the purpose, or if felt necessary to invoke Writ jurisdiction, if so advisable. A suit to restrain the scheme at the stage when it is already implemented, cannot continue. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is enacted to make better provisions for improvement, clearance and redevelopment of slum areas in the State of Maharashtra. The suit in hand, found without valid cause of action cannot be allowed to continue to remain pending for long years which would defeat the provisions of Act, in the facts and circumstances noted by learned trial judge from the prima facie view of the plaint.

4. Therefore, We cannot find fault with learned trial Judge because once the Honorable Supreme Court held that this Slum rehabilitation scheme is duly sanctioned and legal in the present case the same challenge cannot continue to subsist. It would be abuse of the process of law if plaintiffs are allowed to continue the same prayers which cannot be re-agitated and granted when scheme is already declared legal by the High Court and the Supreme Court. More so when building is completed and occupied by the dwellers the prayers as to the challenge letters of intent, intimation of approval and Building commencement Certificate became infructuous. There can be no injunction to restrain construction as the Building is completed and possession also handed over to the dwellers. The suit was rightly dismissed as infructuous. The controversy agitated is already dealt with by discussion of law on the subject by the Apex Court in Pramila Suman Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil Appeal No. 7435 of 2008 decided on 19-12-2008 : [2009 ALL SCR 1976].

5. No ground is made out for interference by this court in exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction. Hence appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.