The Bombay High Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 10th July 2024, which had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as time-barred. The Court held that the impugned Order is erroneous and is based on misreading of Section 17(5) and 17(6) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and directed that the petitioner’s appeal filed against the compensation determination dated 8th August 2023 be restored for adjudication on merits.
The petitioner (landowner) contended that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the thirty-day period commenced from 10th February 2023 and not from 8th August 2023. The petitioner argued that the impugned Order dated 10th July 2024 fails to appreciate that the notice dated 10th February 2023 was merely a procedural communication for conducting a hearing, and not a determination under Section 17(5).
The key issue in this case is whether the thirty-day limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 17(6) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, is to be computed from the date of the notice dated 10th February 2023 or from the date of the order dated 8th August 2023.
The Court, however, rejected the Appellate Authority’s view and held that the language of Sections 17(5) and 17(6) clearly contemplates a determination of compensation after an inquiry, followed by service of a notice calling upon the landowner to indicate whether they accept the amount determined. In this case, the hearing was conducted and a final decision was rendered only on 8th August 2023, which must be treated as the ‘notice’ under Section 17(5). The Court observed that once the hearing was conducted and a decision rendered, only that decision could trigger the limitation period under Section 17(6).
Accordingly, Justice Kamal Khata quashed and set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 10th July 2024 and restored the petitioner’s appeal for adjudication on merits, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Arun Panicker
Respondent: Mr. Nishigandh Patil