THE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GR. MUMBAIversusP.AHMED REHMAN AND ORS.

                                                                       3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc



       Digitally
       signed by               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
       2026.10.06
       18:29:01                  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2565 OF 2001
       +0530

                    The Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika            … Petitioner
                          Versus
                    P. Ahmed Rehman and ors.                    … Respondents
                                                 WITH
                                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5280 OF 2001
                    Municipal Commisioner of Bombay
                    Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & anr. … Petitioner
                           Versus
                    Bashir Kunjamy and ors.                          … Respondents
                                                       ***
                    Mr. Narendra Walavalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. D. R. Kawale for
                    the Petitioner (BMC) in WP/5280/2001.
                    Mr. D. R. Kawale for the Petitioner (BMC) in WP/2565/2001.
                    Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. GP with Smt. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-
                    State.
                    Mr. H. S. Anand for Respondent No.1 in both Petitions.
                    Mr. Kishor Pawar, J.E, officer present in Court.
                                                       ***
                                                          CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                         DATE    : 5th OCTOBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       Both these Petitions are filed by the Petitioner - Municipal

                    Corporation of Greater     Mumbai (‘the Municipal Corporation’, for

                    short), invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.


                    2.       Writ Petition No.2565 of 2001 is filed challenging the

                    Judgment and Order dated 15.03.1999, passed by the President, of

                    Maharashtra       Slum    Areas    (Improvement,      Clearance           and

                    Redevelopment) Tribunal, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in


                    Vina Khadpe                           1
                                                   3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




Miscellaneous Application No.185 of 1998. By the said order, the

Application filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed thereby quashing

and setting aside the notice issued by the Petitioner / Municipal

Corporation under Section 299 (wrongly mentioned as 351) of the

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘BMC Act’, for short).

Respondent No.1 in this petition claims to be the occupier of a shed

situated at CTS No. C-118, Marath D’silva Compound, Land

No.328/2 Sherley, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 051.


3.     Writ Petition No.5280 of 2001 is filed challenging the

Judgment and Order dated 15.03.1999, passed by the same Tribunal

in Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 1999. By the said order, the

Application filed by Respondent No.1 therein, was allowed directing

the Petitioner / Municipal Corporation, not to demolish the structure

without giving Respondent No.1 alternate similar accommodation

prior to demolition, and further directing that the notice for

demolition, if any, should be given not less than four days prior to the

proposed date of demolition. In this case, no notice was issued by

the Petitioner / the Municipal Corporation; however, Respondent

No.1 had directly filed Application based on apprehension that the

Petitioner / Municipal Corporation would demolish the structure in

question. Respondent No.1 in this writ petition claims to be the

occupier of a shed situated at the junction of 13 th and 15th Road, Near

Khar Gymkhana, Khar (west), Mumbai – 400052.

Vina Khadpe                           2
                                                   3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




4.     Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner /

Municipal Corporation in Writ Petition No.5280 of 2001, submitted

that both the impugned orders are passed without jurisdiction, as the

Authority does not have jurisdiction to entertain any original

Application as filed by Respondent No.1. He submitted that in both

these Petitions, the area in question where the structures are situated

are not declared as slum areas, therefore the Tribunal can not have

any jurisdiction under Maharashtra Slum areas (Improvement,

Clearance and Redevelopment) 1971 (‘the Slum Act’, for short). He

contended that applications as filed by Respondent No.1 could not

have been entertained. He submitted that under Section 45 of the

Slum Act, no power is conferred except that of appellate jurisdiction,

for which there has to be a declaration of the Slum. Relying on the

Judgment of this Court in BrihanMumbai Mahanagarpalika Greater

Mumbai Vs. Dy. Collector (ENC) & Competent Authority & Ors. [Writ

Petition (Civil) No.5286 of 2001 decided on 21.02.2025.], it is

submitted that the interplay between the Slum Act and BMC Act, so

far as the power of the Municipal Corporation is concerned is

considered. He submitted that judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in Suo Motu PIL No.01 of 2020 in the case of Jilani Building at

Bhiwandi Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and ors , has

been considered and it is already clarified that until an order is made

for demolition of the building under the Slum Act, the power of the


Vina Khadpe                          3
                                                  3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




Municipal Corporation to take action under the Municipal and other

laws, remains unaffected. He requested that at least similar

observations as in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5286 of 2001 be given

about the action that is initiated by the Petitioner / Municipal

Corporation against Respondent No. 1 in both petitions. Also, in Writ

Petition No.5280 of 2001, certain contentions are raised that in the

documents annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply by Respondent No.1, the

area mentioned in recent licence copies differ from the original area

of the structure.


5.     On the other hand, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1,

appearing in both Petitions submitted that, in Writ Petition No.2565

of 2001, the structure was situated on a private property which was

affected by the Town Planning scheme and that the structure had

been in existence since prior to 1960-1961. He submitted that,

considering various Resolutions as well as the policy of the Municipal

Corporation in respect of providing alternate accommodation,

Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.2565 of 2001 was and is entitled

to such alternate accommodation. He further submitted that the

Judgment in said PIL as well as the said Judgment of the Single

Judge referred above, will not apply to the facts of the present case.

He further submitted that the Tribunal, in both cases, has passed

orders giving reasons and no interference is required. So far as Writ

Petition No.5280 of 2001 is concerned, he submitted that the

Vina Khadpe                          4
                                                    3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




documents on record have already been considered by the Tribunal,

holding that the structure is situated in slum and the same is in

existence prior to the applicable cut-off/datum line of 01.01.95. He

submitted that Government Resolution dated 10.09.1996 was also

considered. He submitted that no interference is required.


6.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.


7.     Before the dispute is considered on facts, it will be apposite to

consider the provisions of the Slum Act. Perusal of the Slum Act

shows that the Tribunal is defined under Section 2(i) of the Slum Act,

and it means, the Tribunal constituted by the State Government.

Section 4(3) of the Slum Act provides that any person aggrieved by a

declaration (of slum area) under section 4(1) can file appeal to the

Tribunal. Section 17(6) of the Slum Act provides that if a person does

not agree with the amount of the net average monthly income

determined by the Chief Executive Officer under Section 17(5), he

may prefer an Appeal to the Tribunal. Section 18(2) of the Slum Act

provides that in case of the apportionment of compensation, if any

dispute arises, then the Competent Authority may refer the dispute

for the decision by the Tribunal. Section 23 of the Slum Act, provides

that if a person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority

refusing to grant the permission under Section 22(1) or Section

22(1A), he may file an Appeal to the Tribunal. Section 42 of the Slum


Vina Khadpe                           5
                                                    3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of any matter which

the Tribunal is empowered by the Slum Act to determine. Under

Section 44 of the Slum Act, where any expenses are incurred by the

Competent Authority under the provisions of the Slum Act and which

are to be recovered as arrears of the land revenue and such claim of

the Competent Authority is disputed, then such question can be

referred to the Tribunal. Section 45 provides for the powers of the

Tribunal in exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the

Slum Act.


8.     Thus the Tribunal is a creature of statute and it may exercise

only those powers expressly conferred by the Act. It cannot assume a

general power to decide matters not specifically assigned to it.



9.     Therefore, it is clear that application challenging the notices

issued under BMC Act or any application made on basis of an

apprehension that action will be taken under BMC Act against the

structure, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. At least,

no provisions was pointed out on behalf of Respondent No.1 from the

Slum Act which can be said to bring the applications filed by

Respondent No.1 within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.


10.    In both the cases, perusal of the impugned orders show that

the Tribunal has arrived at a finding, either about the structure being


Vina Khadpe                           6
                                                     3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




situated in a slum or that the provisions of the Slum Act are

applicable or that it has jurisdiction to pass order, without discussion

about necessary factual prerequisites. In both the impugned orders,

no notification or declaration under section 4 of the Slum Act is even

referred to, much less discussed.


11.    The observations about applicable policy of the Municipal

Corporation based on a Resolution dated 30.3.1964 or under

Resolution No. 1998 of 1964 regarding attempts for giving alternate

accommodation etc. clearly appear to be without jurisdiction. Those

considerations would squarely fall in civil suit or writ petition if

notices issued by Petitioner / Municipal Corporation is to be

challenged or its apprehension is to be redressed.


12.    In any case, nothing is shown to the Court as having been

considered by the Tribunal, which could lead to a positive conclusion

regarding applicability of the Slum Act or the Tribunal having

jurisdiction to consider applications directly. Whether the structure is

on pavement, whether the structure is on private property affected by

the Town Planning Scheme or whether Respondent No.1 is entitled to

any alternate accommodation based on any policy or resolution are

not considerations which the Tribunal could have gone into.


13.    Therefore, the applications as filed by Respondent No.1 directly

challenging the notices issued or apprehended action under BMC Act

Vina Khadpe                           7
                                                   3.as.wp.2565.2001 C2.doc




could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has

not given any satisfactory reason or discussed factual aspects as to

how the Slum Act applies.


14.    Going one step further, it is important to note that even if the

Slum Act applies, in view of the law laid down in Jilani Building at

Bhiwandi (supra), which was then considered by the single Judge of

this Court in WP No.5286 of 2001, it is now settled that until an

order of demolition is made by the Competent Authority under the

Slum Act, the powers of the Municipal Authorities remained

unaffected or undiminished.


15.    In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons

indicated above, impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are

perverse and interference is required.


16.    Hence, both the writ petitions are allowed. Both impugned

orders dated 15.03.1999 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made

absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.


17.    All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed

QR verifiable copy of this order.




                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)



Vina Khadpe                           8