Written Submission 23.3.2018
Written Submission 23.3.2018
Written Submission 23.3.2018
To
The Competent Authority,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
3rd floor, New Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
-------------------------
1. The present day city of Mumbai was built on what was originally
1
and Waras land” forms a part of the island of Mumbai Bay upon
revenue for the Crown. The land tenure made applicable to the
lands of Worli was the “Pension & Tax” tenure. The word
tenure is hereinafter.
2
Dorabji Patel, successfully warded off attacks of Siddi with the
islands.
The same was recognised under the Bombay City Land Revenue
the overall award made to such a Fazandar was the rent but no
3
Bombay, some of which include the Transfer of Property Act of
1882, the MCGM Act of 1888, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894
enacted.
4
a. The Cumulative effect of the above referred two Acts is
which the villagers would continue to own use and occupy and
5
respect of the Waras land prior to the acquisition proceedings.
in turn would entitle the Villagers with all rights over the said
land.
13.It is pertinent to note that the original 457 plot owners of the
with fishing on the said land. The basic use to which the said
and for their fishing trade purposes. This user of the said land
is from time immemorial. The said rights have been used and
6
in existence in favour of the villagers from time immemorial.
by several historians.
same rights of ownership and user over the said Waras Land
as they had been enjoying before the Waras Land was notified
villagers who have were left to refund the said amounts have
7
always been ready and willing to refund the monies and are
alos till this date ready to refund the monies to the MCGM
the term “pension & tax tenure” can be considererd from the
that the term ‘pension takes its origin from the Portuguese
8
would seem to have been invariable for nearly 80 years, or
since 1759, and was only then assessed to the additional rate
owners was only for defraying the expenses of the Crown and
9
16.Moreover, even under the Resolution No.721, passed by the
and in turn pay the agreed Fazandari Rent to the Trust shall
enjoy rights of ownership and user over the said Waras land.
were brought into the MCGM Act, 1888 in the year 1933.
case may be, subject to all the charges and liabilities affecting
the immovable and other property and all other interests and
10
Trust Transfer Act, 1925, including all the estate, right, title
Village and Waras Land are not covered by the said Schedule
1994.
11
1973 does not however consider this aspect also. This aspect
20.Our clients’ further state that the entire portion of the Waras
Land has always been under the use and occupation of the
have been over the years let to several persons, who have been
duly paying rent for the use of the said structures as tenants of
nature are being duly assessed for property tax by the Mumbai
and rely upon the copies of the rent receipts and assessment
12
1) Preliminary objection
implement.
13
Under Sub-section 4 thereof every Slum
to (g) thereof.
such a Declaration.
plot of land.
(4)
14
requisites of Section 3(C) are complied.
at the threshold.
complied with.
15
c. Moreover the provisions of Section 3(C) are
of the Scheme.
than 800 years such that there are existence of small dwelling
a Slum. The Village and the fishermen are the first and
want to for monetary gain just grab any land for development,
16
the provisions of the Slum Act ought not to be invoked and
misused. The fact that judicial notice has been taken off the
Village and its Waras land is running from the 1800’s. The
Slum.
3) Survey:
b) The Survey that had taken place is not a proper and legal
a. No time is mentioned.
b. No purpose is mentioned.
17
e. The owners and occupants were not given any
18
6) The definition of the term “Owner” under the Slum Act covers
and land which are let out on Lease. These structures are
the owners. The owners recover Lease Rent from the Tenants.
owners.
19
in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The matters of the
24. The plot CS No.224, 247, 248 and 236 are the plots relating to
20
belongs to the villagers collectively. With regard to plot of
from the records running from time and judicial notice has
also been taken of the fact that the said land is owned by the
the plot of land forming part of open land, path ways, gully
and other vacant places between houses and other plots and
run from a period of more than 800 years prior to date makes
21
the CS No.(except the property card of CS no. 224) is a
Waras Estate Scheme No.52 that this property was notified for
who are the Owners of the Village Land and the Waras Land.
they are the owners of land within the CS Nos. covered in the
22
26. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that 33(10) of
the DCR is not applicable and the only applicable DCR would
be 33(7) or 33(9).
27. In addition to the above, the Applicant has not given any
declared as Slum;
(iii) The Applicant is taking the stand that the MCGM is the owner
of the entire land, but while answering the points they are
Scheme.
(iv) That Slum like conditions do not exist in the area proposed to
23
Applicants have made contrary statement, stating that no
(vi) The Applicant has made a statement that though the hutments
under his Order dated 18th June, 1976, cancelled the said
No.224 (P) recording therein that the said land does not belong
24
records without any supported documentation and/or
justification.
(viii) The Applicants have stated that most of the Villagers having
structures on the said land are only Imla Malik and have no
further right in the said land and that even, if the said Imla
Koliwada Villagers.
25