Syed Hamidul Bari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

[A.F.R.] [Reserved] Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11383 of 2023 Petitioner :- Syed Hamidul Bari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pushpila Bisht,Ratnesh Chandra,Ruchir ALONG WITH

¶1Case :- WRIT - C No. - 514 of 2024 Petitioner :- Samrat Furniture Manufacturing Shop Lko. Thru. Owner Smt. Najma Bano And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Housing/Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kudesia,Ratnesh Chandra

¶2Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11484 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sabiha Kausar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Akshay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶3Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11244 of 2023 Petitioner :- Suhail Haider Alvi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶4Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11477 of 2023 Petitioner :- Arshad Warsi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Akshay Kumar Singh,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶5Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11360 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohd. Naushad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶6Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11362 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohammad Abrar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶7Case :- WRIT - C No. - 642 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Shafeek And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Prin.Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶8Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11480 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohd. Irshad Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Akshay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶9Case :- WRIT - C No. - 738 of 2024 Petitioner :- Fazeel Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶10WRIT - C No. - 11258 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shri Shakeel Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶11Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11368 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohammad Saif Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶12Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11372 of 2023 Petitioner :- Nameera Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶13Case :- WRIT - C No. - 739 of 2024 Petitioner :- Syed Mahmood Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶14Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11375 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vishnu Swaroop Chaurasya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶15Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11468 of 2023 Petitioner :- Muhammad Shoaib Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Akshay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶16Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11482 of 2023 Petitioner :- Adil Ishtiaq Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Aishvarya Mathur,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶17Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11481 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohd. Abubakar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin.Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Akshay Kumar Singh,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶18Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11492 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohammad Adil Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing/Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Akshay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶19Case :- WRIT - C No. - 729 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rehan Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶20Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11380 of 2023 Petitioner :- Deepak Chaurasia Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing/Urban Planning Deptt. U.P. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶21Case :- WRIT - C No. - 792 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohammad Anwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim,Amrit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶22Case :- WRIT - C No. - 494 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Parvez Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing/Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶23Case :- WRIT - C No. - 527 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd. Shanu And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kudesia,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶1These are 24 writ petitions out of which 22 are filed by individual petitioners and two writ petitions namely Writ-C No.642 of 2024 and Writ-C No.527 of 2024 are filed by 10 and 9 petitioners respectively. Out of them Mohd. 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.

¶2Looking into their GST and income tax returns, location and size of the land occupied and constructions raised by them and also other properties owned by them, their cases are segregated from the main bunch of actual poor slum dwellers and slum areas. Before coming to the submissions of counsel for the parties, the chart, provided by the petitioners on directions of this court, and also added to by the respondents, regarding the GST and income tax returns, area occupied, constructions raised, and other properties owned by these petitioners is as follows:- Sr. No. Writ C No. Name Nature of building occupied GST Returns Income Tax Returns (Total Income) Land unauthorizedly occupied and total constructed area Other properties

¶111383/ 2023 Syed Hamidul Bari husband of Najma (petitioner of writ petition at Sl. No.2) Commercial Samrat Furniture Manufacturing Shop & Ors. Rs. 2,29,89,900/ - approx (2022-23) Rs. 10,00,870/- (2023-24) 1800 sq.ft. Basement+Ground Floor+First Floor+Second Floor 4x1800 sq. ft.=7200 sq. ft. A. Residing at 536/2/198, new madehganj, near avadh school, sultanpur road, Lucknow where he is residing with his family; B. Godown located at Harshita Complex, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. C. Ancestral agricultural land in ancestral village at Rookhi majhari, Utraula, District-Balrampur

¶2Najma Bano wife of Syed Hamidul Bari (petitioner of writ petition at sl. no.1) Commercial Samrat Furniture Manufacturing Shop & Ors. Rs. 1,43,09,235/ - approx (2022-23) Rs. 5,29,970/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,95,900/- (2023-24) 1500 Sq. ft. (Ground Floor + First Floor) 1500x2=3000 sq. ft.) Owns a shop located at Harshita Complex, Faizabad Road, Lucknow with an area of around 200 sq. ft.

¶311484/ 2023 Sabiha Kausar Commercial Rs. 1,11,02,395. 73 approx (2022-23) Rs. 72,73,475.1 9 approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,85,550/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,28,710/- (2023-24) 1100 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor+First Floor 3x1100 sq. ft. =3300 sq. ft. A plot of Land at Madiaon, Tehsil-BKT admeasuring 1600 sq. ft.

¶411244/ 2023 Suhail Haider Alvi Commercial M/s Taj Mahal Furniture Rs. 90,29,089.7 5 approx (2022-23) Rs. 7,80,000/- 2800 sq. ft. Basement+ Ground Floor+First Floor 3x2800 sq. ft. =8400 sq. ft. A. Share in ancestral property located at 41, Pragati Vihar, Priyadharshini, Lucknow B. Flat No.B-G02, Shalimar, Gallant, Mahangar.

¶511477/ 2023 Arshad Warsi Commercial Rs. 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. A. under construction on plot of land at Hasemau, Malhour admeasuring 1250 sq. ft. B. Share in ancestral house admeasuring 1800 sq. ft. and agricultural land admeasuring 7 Bigha in District Kasganj.

¶611360/ 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.

¶711362/ 2023 Mohd Abrar brother of petitioner in writ petition at. Commercial (Shop Merged with brother, no longer in Rs. 68,61,384/- approx (2022-23) 4,80,470/- (2022-23) 4,81,000/- 400 sq. ft A. A shop in Nishatganj located on 980 sq. ft. ; B. A small flat in IMT Building, sl. 6 Akbar Nagar) Rs. 41,25,584/- approx (2023-24) (2023-24) New Hyderabad, Lucknow located on 950 Sq. ft., by way of a housing loan for 15 years.

¶8Mohd. Shafeek Khan Petitioner No. 1 Husband of Petitioner No.5 Shahana Commercial cum Residential M/s M.R. Uniform Rs. 45,67,519/- approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,97,360/- (2023-24) 540 sq. ft. Ground Floor + First Floor + Second Floor 3x540 sq. ft.= 1620 sq. ft. Petitioner No.1 owns two plot one at Fatima Colony, Husainabad, measuring about 680 sq. ft. and other at Nizampur Malhaur measuring 1600 sq. ft. (owns total 2280 sq. ft.)

¶911480/ 2023 Irshad Ali Commercial Rs. 10,06,834/- approx (2022-23) Rs. 4,98,500/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,94,100 (2023-24) 2,000 sq. ft. (Basement + Ground Floor) 2x2000 sq. ft.=4000 sq. ft. Ghasiyari Living in Ancestral Property, details of which are not provided.

¶10Fazeel Ahmad Commercial cum Residential Rs. 13,14,515/- approx (2021-22) Rs 14,53,009/- approx (2022-23) Rs. 4,20,650/- (2022-23) Rs 4,86,760/- (2023-24) 1100 sq.ft. (Basement + Ground Floor) 2x1100 sq. ft= 2200 sq. ft. None

¶1111258/ 2023 Shakeel Ahmed Commercial Rs. 6,96,809/- approx (2022-23) Rs. 3,42,000/- approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,99,560/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,54,800/- (2023-24) 750 sq.ft. (Basement + Ground Floor) 2x750sq. ft. =1500 sq. ft. Petitioner is currently residing at 234/69, Thawai Tola, Raja Bazaar, Lucknow – 226003, which is owned by his wife

¶1211368/ 2023 Mohd. Saif Khan ) Commercial (Firm registered in the name of father Mr. Mohd Israr Rs. 5,99,639.38 approx (2017-18) Rs. 3,00,053.94 approx (2018-19) Rs. 2,92,950/- (2017-18) Rs. 3,09,329/- (2018-19) Rs. 55,945/- (2019-20) 2900 sq. ft. (Basement + Ground Floor) + First Floor) 2x2900 sq. ft. =5800 sq. ft. Residential details are not given

¶1311372/ 2023 Nameera Khan Commercial given on rent by her NA Rs. 7,03,051/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,37,960/- (2023-24) 1800 Sq. ft. (Basement + Ground Floor + First Floor) 3x1800 sq. ft. =5400 sq, ft.

A-402, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016, Late husband joint family house

¶14Syed Mahmood Ali Commercial Rs. 14,97,129/- approx (2022-23) Rs. 7,49,148/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,37,360/- (2023-24) 750 sq.ft. Basement+Ground Floor 2x750 sq. ft.=1400 sq. ft. Plot of land at Madiaon, Tehsil - BKT admeasuring 1600 sq. ft.

¶1511375/ 2023 Vishnu swaroop Chaurasia Commercial Rs. 16,66,800/- 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

¶1611468/ 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

¶1711482/ 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

¶1811481/ 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, District-Barabanki 11492/ 2023 Mohd. Adil Commercial M/s Bombay Furniture and Interior Decorator Rs. 55,04,000/- approx (2022-23) Rs. 29,71,460/- Approx (2023-24) Rs. 3,46,390/- (2022-23) Rs. 4,59,030/- (2023-24) 1800 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor+First Floor 3x1800 sq. ft.=5400 sq. ft Parental House R/O Old Haiderganj, Chowk, Lucknow

¶20Rehan Ali Commercial Cum House Stamp Manufacturer Rs. 1,00,378/- approx (2023-24) Rs. 4,86,140/- approx(202 3-24) Rs. 4,70,200/- 300 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor 2x300 sq.t. =600 sq. ft. A semi constructed house at Khurram Nagar admeasuring about 1800 sq.ft.

¶2111380/ 2023 Deepak Chaurasia Commercial Zero GST Closed in the year 2019 Rs. 4,42,700/- (2023-24) Rs. 4,60,040/- (2022-23) 1200 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor 2x1200 sq. ft.=2400 sq. t. A Semi finished housed of 1365 sq. ft., at 9-C/249, Vrindavan Yojana, Lucknow

¶22Mohd. Anwar Commercial cum Residential Coffee Shop Rs. 17,32,610/- approx (2022-23) Rs. 2,47,940/- approx (2021-22) Rs 4,11,220/- (2021-22) Rs. 4,17,470/- (2022-23) 900 sq. ft. Ground Floor None

¶23Mohd. Parvez Khan Commercial cum Residential Rs. Rs.5,35,007/ - approx (2020-21) Rs. 4,23,106/- approx (2021-2022) Rs. 12,34,602/- approx (2022-23) Rs 2,12,020/- (2022-23) 3,37,340/- (2023-24) 180 sq. ft. Basement+Ground Floor+First Floor 3x180 Sq. ft. =540 sq. ft. None

¶24Abdulla-Petitioner No.6 Commercial Rs.49,960/- approx (2022-23) Rs.40,800/- approx (2023-24) NA 200 sq. ft. Ground Floor+ First Floor 2x200=400 sq. ft. Residential detail are not given

¶3In the said background, Mr. Sudeep Kumar, Advocate, Sri Anuj Kudesia, Advocate assisted by Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate for the respondent, Lucknow Development Authority, as well as learned Chief Standing Counsel strongly raise preliminary objection, that, these persons are neither slum dwellers nor their properties fall in the category of a slum. They state that by concealing the aforesaid correct facts, with regard to their status, the location and nature of construction and the area occupied by them, they have, by giving false impression to the Court, obtained interim orders on parity. It was incumbent upon them to have approached this Court with clean hands, providing entire details about their status. They 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.

¶4Attention 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 herself lives in posh Indira Nagar, Colony, Lucknow.

¶5In support of their case respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar Vs. The State of Madras; AIR 1964 Madras 115. Relevant portion of the same reads :- "11........The expression "slum dwellers though in popular parlance has acquired some special meaning, namely, those who are economically and socially backward and who huddle themselves together in openings in unhealthy surroundings, the term as such has no such technical meaning. The word "slum" in its, true import means a "street or alley situate in a crowded district of a town or city and inhabited by people of in low class or by the poor". It may be that in some cases the slum area may be a thickly populated one and of a squalid and wretched character, but essentially the word slum is of wide import including within it a crowded place in a city inhabited by the poor....." (emphasis added)

¶6Mr. Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apoorva Tewari, Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, Mr. Amrit Khare and Mr. Kazim Ibrahim is leading arguments for petitioners. He submits that it is not necessary for a slum dweller to be a poor person. Anyone from the slum areas can be a slum dweller, whether he is living there or is running his commercial activities in that area. Since petitioners are running their commercial activities in the said Akbar Nagar area they would fall within the definition of slum dweller. Mr. Mathur submits that the concept of rich and poor has nothing to do either with slum or slum areas. He submits that it is the U.P. Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1962 which applies and hence, we should look at the said Act to understand these terms. He refers to Section 2(i) of the Act of 1962 and Clause 4(1) of the Policy dated 29.10.2021 issued under the said Act which defines the term 'Slum'. The same read:- "2(i) Slum area means an area declared as such under Section 3;"

¶4परिभाषा

-इस नीति में, जब क संदभ से अन्यथा अपेति न हो, निनम्नलि%लि& शब्दों के वही अथ होंगे, जो निनम्नव परिभानिष निकये गये हैः-

¶1मलि%न बस्ी (स्%म) का अभिभ्ቚाय उ्ቈ ्ቚदेश मलि%न बस्ी े्ቔ (सुधा औ निनपान) अतिधनिनयम, 1962 की धाा-3 के अनुसा परिभानिष स्%म से है, जिजसमें ऐसी बቜኌस्यां सम्मलि% होंगी, जहाँ स्वच्छा, स्वास्थ्य, सुा, सड़क आनिद का समुतिH व्यवस्था न हो था मानव निनवास के लि%ए अनुपयु्ሹ हो। इस नीति के अन्ग ऐसे स्%म मान्य होगें, जिजनमें न्यूनम 300 व्यनि्ሹ हों।

¶7He submits that neither of the said definitions uses the word 'poor' with regard to a sum dweller or slum area. Therefore, the concept of poor and rich is wrongly being applied. He submits that it is very much possible that a person may earn money with time and become rich but still could continue to remain in a slum area and he can not be denied the benefits as available to other 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.

¶8Counsel 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-Faizabad road or immediately at the back of first row of showrooms. Also admitted are tax returns and other property details as detailed in the chart above. Thus, we proceed to consider rival submissions on aforesaid admitted facts.

¶9The term 'slum' and 'slum dweller' is defined in number of dictionaries, some of which read:- Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary New Edition Slum / slum (slums) A slum is an area of a city where living condition are very bad and where the houses are in bad condition WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY Slum (slum) n.,v., slummed slumming often slums a street, alley, or building in where a crowded, run –down, dirty part of the city or town, where the poorest people live. Poverty and disease are common in the slums. we hear stories now and then of some boys from a slum who makes good and wind up with a fortune. if [his] philosophy prevails, we shall have taken a long step backward toward the sweetshop and the slum (Time)

¶2Extreme poverty and low social class, as in the slums : to rise from the slums to power and wealth. BLACK 'S LAW DICTIONARY Slum,n.(1825) 1. An urban area where very poor people live in substandard condition characterized by filth squalor, and frequent violence

¶2A house or apartment located in such a place . THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY Slum

¶2a. A Street, alley, court, etc, situated in a crowded district of a town or city and inhabited by people of a low class or by the very poor; a number of these streets or courts forming a thickly populated neighbourhood or district where the houses and the conditions of life are of a squalid and wretched character Chiefly pl., and freq. in the phrase back slum(s). Also rarely, a house materially for human habitation."

¶10From the aforesaid dictionary meanings, it is clear that in normal parlance the term slum relates to an area in a city where poor and needy people live in an unhealthy, unhygienic and in conditions not fit and suitable for human habitat and poor living in the said conditions are called slum dwellers.

¶11Admittedly, all these showrooms/workshops, engaged in furniture and related businesses, exist on main road or are immediately adjacent to it. They are getting all benefits of any regular area of the city. They have widest road 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 litigants." stated in paragraph 35 of (1985) 3 SCC 545; 'Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation'; "It must be understood that an interpretation which upon application of the provisions at the ground reality, would frustrate the very law should not be accepted against the common sense view which will further such application." in Paragraph 48 of (2012) 2 SCC 108; 'Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill and, "We are constrained to observe that the approach of the High Court to this question was not well-founded. The Privy Council no doubt laid down in Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State [(1927) LR 54 IA 338] that the terms of this section should be strictly complied with. That does not however mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinized in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from common sense. As was stated by Pollock C.B. in Jones v. Nicholls [(1844) 13 M & W 361, 363 : 153 ER 149, 150] "We must import a little common sense into notices of this kind". Beaumont, C.J., also observed in Chandu Lal Vadilal v. Government of Bombay [ILR (1943) Bom

128.] :"One must construe Section 80 with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed…." in paragraph 30 of AIR 1958 SC 274; 'Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and another vs. Unin of India'.

¶12As per the law settled, the words are to be interpreted in such a manner that they serve the purpose and are not given an interpretation which goes against very common sense. Lets take a hypothetical example to explain the issue further. Presuming in a slum, a businessman finding good business opportunity, takes possession of a large piece of land from the actual slum dwellers and illegally, without required sanctions, constructs a multiplex or a big hotel or a big shopping complex or raises any other such big business constructions. Can he, merely because he did these activities within a slum, claim to be a slum dweller entitled to the protection given to dingy houses of slum dwellers, despite all aspects of the matter reflecting his disparity with actual slum dwellers? The answer 'NO' comes to us too loudly. Thus we do not find our common sense accepting the sense of argument raised for the petitioners. The purpose of all legislation 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.

¶13The 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.

¶14We have perused both the proceedings at length with the assistance of counsel for parties. A perusal of the same shows that the documents were called for and considered to ascertain the status of Kukrail river/water channel next to the slum area and impact of slum on the said water channel. Once we have held that neither the petitioners are slum dwellers nor their establishments fall within the slum area, the said documents do not in any manner have any impact on the rights of the petitioners. Both before the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority petitioners represented themselves to be slum dwellers and did not place correct facts. Both the authorities have held proceedings and passed orders against petitioners on the basis of the said incorrect presumption.

¶15Further, we have given an exhaustive hearing to the parties. The facts of the case are admitted to both sides. The law is well settled that this court should not issue futile writs. We refer to one of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 706;'State of U.P. Vs. Sudhir Kumar and Others; wherein, after referring to nearly all earlier judgments, supreme court in para 42 held: "42. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:

(1) Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem Rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.

(2) Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.

(3) No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.

(4) In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not 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."

¶16In 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.

¶17Before 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 happen in the capital of the country without passive or active connivance of the land-owning agencies and/or the municipal authorities. The promise of free land, at the taxpayers' cost, in place of a jhuggi, is a proposal which attracts more landgrabbers. Rewarding an encroacher on public land with a free alternative site is like giving a reward to a pickpocket. The Department of Slum Clearance does not seem to have cleared any slum despite its being in existence for decades. In fact more and more slums are coming into existence. Instead of "slum clearance" there is "slum creation" in Delhi. This in turn gives rise to domestic waste being strewn on open land in and around the slums. This can best be controlled at least, in the first instance, by preventing the growth of slums. The authorities must realise that there is a limit to which the population of a city can be increased, without enlarging its size. In other words the density of population per square kilometre cannot be allowed to increase beyond the sustainable limit. Creation of slums resulting in increase in density has to be prevented. What the Slum Clearance Department has to show, however, does not seem to be visible. It is the garbage and solid waste generated by these slums which require to be dealt with most expeditiously and on the basis of priority."

¶18In the said background and looking into the entirety of the matter this Court finds no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of petitioners. Thus, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Writ-C No.642 of 2024 is dismissed so far it relates to petitioner no.1 Mohd. Shafeek and petitioner no.5 Smt. Shahana only. Similarly Writ-C No.527 of 2024 is also dismissed so far it relates to petitioner no.6 Abdulla only. Remaining petitioners in these two writ petitions are being considered along with the other bunch of writ petitions of actual slum dwellers, leading petition being Writ-C No.1372 of 2024.

¶19Interim orders, if any, granted earlier, stands discharged with regard to the aforesaid petitioners. Order Date :- 27.02.2024 Arti/- [Om Prakash Shukla,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench