SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 103

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj Panchayat Banganga Rajak Samaj Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 887-888 of 2020 [Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 33078-33079 of 2015]
Decided on : 31-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shekhar Naphade, Sneha Ravi Iyer, Neha Sangwan, Aishwarya Dash, Advocates
For the Respondent:Sachin Patil, Sanjay Kharde, Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
When validity of Letter of Intent itself is for three months and if same is not kept alive, premium is to be paid as per Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008.

Headnote:

Town Planning – Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Letter of Intent was valid for a period of three months only – If, for any reason, delay is occurred in obtaining clearance from Coastal Zone Management Authority, nothing prevented appellants to make appropriate representation so as to keep Letter of Intent alive – When validity of Letter of Intent itself is for three months and if same is not kept alive, premium is to be paid as per Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008 – By virtue of that notification, developer/cooperative society is required to pay premium @ 25% in terms of Ready Reckoner, in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes proposed to be undertaken on lands owned by Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies – Demand made by respondents is in conformity with law – No illegality in impugned orders passed by High Court in either dismissing writ petition or review petition – Appeals dismissed. [Sections 37(1) and 154 of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966] (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Present civil appeals are filed by original petitioners in Writ Petition No.1902 of 2010 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, aggrieved by the order dated 03rd May 2012 dismissing the writ petition and further order dated 01st of July 2015 dismissing the review petition.

Findings of the Court:

Letter of Intent was valid for a period of three months only. If, for any reason, delay is occurred in obtaining clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority, nothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation so as to keep the Letter of Intent alive. When the validity of Letter of Intent itself is for three months and if the same is not kept alive, we are of the view that the premium is to be paid as per the Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008.

Result : Civil Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Leave granted.

2. These civil appeals are filed by the original petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2010 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, aggrieved by the order dated 03rd May 2012 dismissing the writ petition and further order dated 01st of July 2015 dismissing the review petition.

3. In the aforesaid writ petition filed before the High Court, the appellants have challenged an order of the High Power Committee (HPC) dated 19th December 2009 by which, the demand made by the 2nd respondent Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) demanding premium of an amount of Rs. 8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only), is confirmed in respect of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 05th January 2005, issued in their favour for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The appellants also sought directions to direct the SRA to issue Commencement Certificate as per the existing guidelines.

4. The appellant no.1 is the registered society of slum dwellers, who are stated to be residing on plot bearing no. CS No.51, 2/51, 3/51 of Malabar Hill and Cumballa Hill Div. at Bhagwan Indrajit Road, Mumbai. The appellant no.2 is a rehabilitator who was approached by the 1st appellant-society to develop the said plot and rehabilitate its members under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, under Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1976. On the proposal for the aforesaid scheme, a LOI bearing no.SRA/Eng/875/D/GL/LOI dated 05.01.2005 has been issued by the 2nd respondent-authority in favour of the 2nd appellant to carry out the said rehabilitation. Since the said plot was within the area of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), the said LOI was issued subject to clearance by CRZ authorities as provided under Clause 46, by the 1st respondent and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA).

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Coastal Zone Management Authority, 1st respondent-Government issued notification dated 16.04.2008. The Government of Maharashtra has issued directives under Section 37(1) and Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act. As per the above said directives issued by the Government, developer/co-operative society is required to pay premium @ 25% in terms of the Ready Reckoner in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme proposed to be undertaken on the lands owned by the Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies. In view of the said notification issued by the Government, the appellants were demanded an amount of Rs. 8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only) towards the premium.

6. Questioning the letter of demand issued by the 2nd respondent for the aforesaid sum, the appellants have approached the HPC. Even the HPC has considered the issue and rejected the claim of the appellants that they are not required to pay the premium amount as much as they were already issued LOI dated 05.01.2005. Questioning the demand of Rs. 8,47,69,029.69 and further order issued by the HPC, the appellants have approached the High Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No. 1902 of 2010. The above writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.05.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the review petition filed by the appellants has also ended in dismissal by order dated 01.07.2015.

7. We have heard Sri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Government and 2nd respondent-authority.

8. The Letter of Intent dated 05.01.2005 was issued in favour of the appellants in respect of the scheme, under Development Control Regulation 33(10). Clauses 40 and 46 of the LOI read as under:

    "40. That this LOI is valid for the period of 3 (three) months from the date hereof. However, if IOA/CC is obtained for any one bldg.. of the project then this LOI will remain valid till completi


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top