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

2011 Supreme(Bom) 446

2011(4) ALLMR 120
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA
Shivkupa Builders & Developers
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2009
Decided on: 15-04-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Anand Grover a/w Ms. Firdaus Moosa i/by Prakash Mahadik, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Milind More, AGP, R2 & R3, G.D. Utangale a/w Mr. B.V. Phadnis i/by M/s. Utangale & Co., R4, S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Advocate a/w Zubin Behram Kamdin i/by M/s. Bharucha & Partners, R5, Ms. T.H. Puranik, R6, Samir A. Vaidya, R7, Bhalchandra Palav i/by M/s. A & M & S.A. Shroff & Co., R8, P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate a/w Ms. Naira Variava i/by Umashankar Upadhayay, Advocates.

Headnote:Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 - Section 13-Development scheme - For slum rehabilitation-Termination of development agreement-Grant of permission to society to appoint new developer by SRA-Merely on ground of delay without verifying pending litigations-Not proper.-The object of early development of such scheme and rehabilitation of the occupiers or the slum dwellers, though prime and important consideration, yet the authorities are bound to act within the reasonable time to see that the object is completed as announced. The authorities accordingly empowered to take steps and to pass such appropriate order. Therefore, if they are empowered to permit the developer in case of such situation to develop or continue with the project based upon the original sanction plan, and if the parties agree, such order can be passed. But to pass order or permit the new developer by accepting the case of society for termination of the contract with the petitioners on the ground of delay of the project, in the present case, is contrary and impermissible and it is without jurisdiction. In Court’s view, the authority has no power or to modify the plan or grant such sanction to continue with the construction of its scheme based upon the certificates and sanction of the plan of the year 2000 in such fashion without following due procedure of law and in fact is contrary to the record itself. Therefore, as admittedly, there was no substantial change in the circumstances so far as the availability of the land in question, except the alleged ground of delay and/or not completion of project within the time, such drastic action by overlooking the commercial aspect of such agreement, in Court’s view, is bad in law.

       The slum dwellers, who are on the disputed or undisputed land, if not willing to vacate the area and because of delay, and some slum dwellers/occupants or the tenants, not willing to vacate the existing area inspite of the agreement, to permit the society to terminate the contract, and to grant/permit new developer to continue with the project, without verifying pending litigations and which required regulations, in Court’s view, is impermissible.

Judgment :

The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 14/10/2009 passed by Respondent No.3 (The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Slum Rehabilitation Authority) under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvements, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, the Slum Areas Act) thereby has approved the termination of the Petitioners development agreement and simultaneously permitted to appoint new developer,/Respondent No.8, to continue to develop the slum rehabilitation scheme as announced 10 years back.

FACTA PROBANDA

2 Basic facts are as under:

The Petitioners are a registered partnership firm and have been involved in building, development and redevelopment activities since 1995.

3 The State of Maharashtra (Respondent no.1) has formed and approved various schemes and policies and framed rules and regulations under the various State Acts, to rehabilitate slum dwellers and occupiers of the Government and the Corporation lands and/or otherwise. Respondent No.2 is the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (the SRA) constituted under the Slum Areas Act. Respondent No.3 is CEO who functions as a head of Respondent No.2/SRA. Respondent No.4 is Indira SRA Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (Indira) of the Slum dwellers on whose applications the impugned order is passed. Respondent No.5 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai who is the owner of the land (MCGM). Respondent No.6 is a Cooperative Society of slum dwellers/tenants claiming rights over the land in question i.e Prem Siddha Cooperative Housing Society (Prem Siddha). Respondent No.7 is Birla Industries Group Charity Trust (the Trust), claiming perpetual lease rights over part of the land under the scheme, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 6277 of 2000, now 1762/2006.

4 The tenants/ occupants/slum dwellers, 2,270 in number, residing on C.S. No. 20 (Part), 32 (part), 33, 35, 36, 41, 65, 66 Worli Scheme No.58, plot 88 to 104 admeasuring about 42,955.22 sq. mtrs. situated at Worli which falls into G/South Ward belonging to Bombay Municipal Corporation (MCGM) formed a Cooperative society (Respondent no.4Indira Society) for the purpose of protection of their right, title and interest and for deriving the benefits of the Slum policy of the Government of Maharashtra.

5 As the members of Indira CHS Ltd were not in a position to approach Slum Authorities and other concerned authorities and to obtain sanction from them, the Society vide its General Body Resolution, appointed the Petitioners as a builder and developer for the scheme, to be implemented on the property mentioned above, and executed a necessary agreement dated 04.11.1994.

Pursuant to the General Body Resolution and consent of more than 70% of tenants/ occupants, the Petitioners had prepared a proposal for the Slum Redevelopment scheme (the Scheme) and approached the MCGM, for certification and verification of the tenants/ occupants on the property.

6 On 25/10/1996, the Officer of the MCGM physically verified the tenants and occupants and the consent terms executed in favour of the Petitioner and accordingly certified the lists as Annexure-II.

7 On 18/11/1997, the scheme submitted by the Petitioners on behalf of Respondent No.4 was principally approved by Respondent No.2.

8 On 31/12/1999, a Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued, of the complete area. On 30/03/2000, Respondent No.2 issued a Commencement Certificate (C.C.).

9 On 10/01/2000, the SRA permitted the Petitioners to revise its plan excluding the trust area.

10 The Trust filed a Writ Petition in this Court at its Appellate side bearing No. 6277 of 2000 (now W.P. No. 1762/2006(O.S.) This Court on 21.11.2000 admitted the above Petition and pending the hearing and final disposal, Respondent No.4/Society and consequently the Petitioners, were prevented from constructing and/or developing plot bearing Nos. 9195 and 100104 and also using FSI of the said plots. The interim order has been in force since then till this date. The challenges are also to NOC d








































































































































































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