TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shafeek- Petitioner no.1 and Smt. Shahana-Petitioner No.5 in Writ-C No.642 of 2024 and Abdulla-Petitioner No.6 in Writ-C No.527 of 2024 are involved in present bunch of writ petitions. These 25 petitioners relate to large bunch of writ petitions regarding slum known as Akbar Nagar (I) and (II), Lucknow. The said slum situates along the sides of Kukrail river/nala and falls much inside the city. Petitioners, persons of resources, claiming themselves as slum dwellers, obtained stay orders from the High Court and also attempted to be heard along with actual poor slum dwellers. It was only during course of the argument, that this Court came to know that they actually have illegally occupied large pieces of land of State Government and raised multi-story furniture showrooms/workshops on the main Lucknow-Faizabad Road, or immediately at the back of first row of showrooms, are filing their GST and income tax returns and mostly are living in their own houses in posh or well developed, old settled residential areas/colonies of Lucknow and in most of the cases also owning other properties. 2. Looking into their GST and income tax returns, location and size of the land occupied and constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 58,96,916/approx (2021-22) Rs. 1,06,73,467/ - approx (2022-23) Rs. 4,96,150/- 2800 sq.ft. Basement+ Ground Floor+First Floor 3x2800 sq. ft.= 8,400 sq. ft. under construction on plot of land at Hasemau, Malhour admeasuring 1250 sq. ft. Share in ancestral house admeasuring 1800 sq. ft. and agricultural land admeasuring 7 Bigha in District Kasganj. 6. 11360/ 2023 Mohd Naushad brother of petitioner in writ petition at sl. 7 Commercial Rs. 72,15,503/approx (2022-23) Rs 55,68,437.1 2 approx (2023-24) 4,94,890/- (2022-23) 4,97,570/- (2023-24) 2,000 sq. ft. (400 sq.ft. Of Mohd Abrar + 1600 sq. ft. of himself holding together) (Basement + Ground Floor) 2x2000=4000 sq. ft. LIG House in the name of her wife at L-2/644, Vineet Khand Gomti Nagar, Admeasuring 546 sq.ft. 7. 11362/ 2023 Mohd Abrar brother of petitioner in writ petition at. sl. 6 Commercial (Shop Merged with brother, no longer in Akbar Nagar) Rs. 68,61,384/approx (2022-23) Rs. 41,25,584/approx (2023-24) 4,80,470/- (2022-23) 4,81,000/- (2023-24) 400 sq. ft A. A shop in Nishatganj locatedon 980 sq. ft. ; A small flat in IMT Building, New Hyderabad, Lucknow located on 950 Sq. f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,66,800/approx (2021-22) Rs. 27,45,600/approx (2022-23) Rs. 3,73,180/(2022-23) Rs. 4,39,980/- (2023-24) 770 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor+First Floor 3x770 sq. ft.=2310 sq. ft. Parental House in Ram Tirth Marg, Narhai, Hazratganj 16. 11468/ 2023 Mohd. Shoaib Ali Commercial Rs. 8,86,412/approx (2022-23) Rs. 88,602/approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,96,500/(2022-23) Rs. 4,90,190/- (2023-24) 1200 sq. ft. Ground Floor+First Floor 2x1200 sq. ft.=2400 sq. ft. Residing in parental house in Ghasiyari mandi, Kaisrbagh 17. 11482/ 2023 Adil Ishtiaq Commercial Rs. 8,39,807/approx (2022-23) Rs. 2,92,576/approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,92,010/(2022-23) Rs. 4,23,930/- (2023-24) 1100sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor 2x1100 sq. ft.=2200 sq. ft. Residing in parental house in Ghasiyari mandi, Kaisrbagh 18. 11481/ 2023 Mohd. Abubakar Commercial cum residential Rs. 1,65,669/approx (2022-23) Rs. 2,20627/approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,77,980/- 600 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor+First Floor 3x600 sq. ft. =1800 sq. ft. Share in ancestral agricultural land along with his brother admeasuring around 1 Bigha at village- Umrah, Kursi, DistrictBarabanki 19 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have wrongly represented before this Court as poor landless slum dwellers and in the garb thereof are trying to save their huge, illegal and unauthorised constructions on the government land. 4. Attention of this Court is also drawn with regard to case of Sayed Hamidul Bari & Najma who are husband and wife and have occupied two separate plots of land and are running two separate businesses and have filed two petitions being Writ-C No.11383 of 2023 and Writ-C No.514 of 2024 (at Sl. 1 & 2 in the chart). Similarly, Shafeeq and Shahana, petitioner no.1 and 5 of Writ-C No.642 of 2024 (Sl. No.8 in chart) are husband and wife and have made their two separate claims. However they have not provided details of separate properties occupied by them. Similarly, Naushad and Abrar (Sl No.6 and 7 in the chart) are two real brothers, have occupied two separate properties and have filed two separate petitions being Writ-C No.11360 of 2023 and Writ-C No.11362 of 2023 who now claim that they have merged their shops and entire property is owned by one of the brothers. Nameera Khan, petitioner in Writ-C No.11372 of 2023 (Sl. no.13 in chart) has rented out her illegally constructed showroom while hers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her slum dwellers. Mr. Mathur states that judgment in case of S. Sivaprakasaa Mudaliar (Supra), arising from the Madras High Court, is a case relating to acquisition of land and the main issue before the Court was, whether the purpose of acquisition of land would be treated to have changed in case along with slum dwellers, the scheme also permits allotment of certain house sites to low and middle-income group persons. He submits that the main issue before the Court was not definition of the slum dwellers and, hence, judgment of the said case is of no assistance. He further submits that the court cannot take GST or income tax returns of the petitioners, or the location or size of area occupied and nature of constructions raised or other properties owned by them, into consideration for not treating them as slum dwellers or their area as slum. 8. Counsel for petitioners fairly accepted before this court that the land occupied by all the petitioners belongs to State Government and furniture or related products showrooms/workshops constructed by the petitioners upon the same are without any authorisation and, thus, are illegal. It is also accepted that they exist on the main Lucknow-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oad possible in the city. The main road is not filthy or lacks in any possible municipal facility. Their huge showrooms/workshops cannot be called filthy, run-down or unfit for humans. It is only that their address is shown as Akbar Nagar. The actual slum, covered by aforesaid definitions, begins behind these showrooms. Thus, petitioners are not suffering any of the challenges faced by the actual slum dwellers of the said slum. In the given circumstances, it is not possible for this court to accept that the showrooms/workshops of petitioners can be called as existing in a slum area. At best they exist at the edge of Akbar Nagar slum area and not in the said slum area. Similarly, the facts that they have had enough money to spend on illegal construction of huge showrooms/workshops, are paying their GST and filing income tax returns and/or most of them are having their own residences in good and posh localities of city and/or other properties, we are unable to hold them as slum dwellers. We are here also reminded the words of Supreme Court:- "Common sense, which is a cluster of life's experiences, is often more dependable than the rival facts presented by warring litigan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion as well as law developed and settled by the courts, with regard to slum dwellers is, that these people, due to their poorness and circumstances are forced to live under inhuman conditions of a slum and all possible sympathies be applied and considered for improving their conditions and also while disturbing their possession. We do not find petitioners entitled to any such sympathies. We shall definitely consider these aspects while hearing the segregated bunch of petitions of actual slum dwellers. 13. The next submission of Mr. Mathur is that proceedings initiated against petitioners and the appeal decided under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter Act of 1973), both are in violation of principles of natural justice. He states that the large number of documents were accepted by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority at the time of hearing of the matter, copies of which were not provided to the petitioners. Further, the appeals were placed for hearing of stay applications, but were heard on merits. Thus matters should be remanded. 14. We have perused both the proceedings at length with the assistance of couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. (5) The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice." 16. In the admitted facts of the case we have duly considered the rival contentions and already given our findings. Thus, we do not find any reason to remand the matter. 17. Before closing, we also would like to place on record the words of caution of the Supreme Court in case of 'Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 679 in paragraph 14:- "14. Establishment or creating of slums, it seems, appears to be good business and is well organised. The number of slums has multiplied in the last few years by geometrical proportion. Large areas of public land, in this way, are usurped for private use free of cost. It is difficult to believe that this can ....