Facts: The petitioner, a commercial occupant in a slum rehabilitation project, sought permanent alternate accommodation facing Khotkuwa Road as per an agreement. The developer was appointed in 2023 and got plans approved showing commercial premises facing the road. The petitioner did not vacate his temporary structure, claiming non-provision of the agreed accommodation. The developer sought action under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, and the SRA issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause for not vacating. The petitioner argued the rehabilitation building was near completion and the developer was delaying allotment of the commercial premises. The SRA ordered eviction, citing obstruction to the scheme and pending NOCs. The petitioner appealed to the AGRC, which upheld the eviction order.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the orders of the SRA and the AGRC, seeking to quash the orders and restrain the developer from changing the approved plan regarding the petitioner's alternate accommodation.
Issue: Can the petitioner resist eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, on the ground that he is entitled to be allocated commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road in the rehabilitation building?
Holding: No, the petitioner cannot resist eviction. The writ petition is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the scope of proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act is limited to determining whether the occupant has failed to vacate the structure, thereby affecting the progress of the scheme. The authority has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the SRA scheme or the Letter of Intent. The petitioner's entitlement to alternate accommodation facing Khotkuwa Road cannot be a ground to resist eviction. The Court relied on previous judgments, including Andrade Motors and Anil Jain, which established that the authority's power under these sections is limited and that grievances regarding alternate accommodation should be pursued separately without obstructing the rehabilitation project. The court also noted that the Fire Department had not issued an NOC due to the existence of the temporary structures, further justifying the eviction order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies regarding the allocation of permanent alternate accommodation separately.