Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.Kulkarni, J.
Yash Developers – Appellant
Versus
Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. – Respondent
Interim Application No. 4297 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-fulfillment of construction timelines. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. development agreement and ownership structure. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. obstacles in obtaining approvals and evictions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. process of shifting slum dwellers. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. petitioner's financial obligations and disputes. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 6. arguments from both parties regarding delay and financial capacity. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 7. court's role in reviewing administrative agency decisions. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. evaluation of delay justification provided by the developer. (Para 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 9. developer's financial and technical capacity. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 10. issues surrounding third-party financing. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 11. obligations of the developer towards timelines. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 12. consequences of inordinate delays. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 13. need for reform in selecting developers. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 14. developers’ need for timely and effective action. (Para 71 , 72) |
| 15. repercussions of the agrc's findings. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 16. perseverance of complaints against the developer. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 17. judicial standards for overturning agrc findings. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 18. consequences of breaching the development agreement. (Para 87 , 88) |
| 19. historical precedents for slum rehabilitation schemes. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 20. petitioner’s claims for damages due to agrc's ruling. (Para 93 , 94 , 95) |
| 21. conclusion of the court against the petitioner's claims. (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100) |
JUDGMENT
G.S.KULKARNI, J. - The judgment has been divided into the following Sec. to facilitate analysis:- Sec. HEADING PARA NOS.
A Prelude 2 B Facts 5 C Submissions on 35 behalf of the petitioner. D Submissions behalf 36 of the respondent No. 1 E Analysis and 37 Conclusion A. Prelude :
2. A developer being removed on the non-fulfillment of the basic requirement to commence construction of a slum rehabilitation building for a long period of 18 years, whether is not fatal to the object and intention of a statutory intent behind a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, is an issue which falls for consideration of the Court in the present proceedings. Another crucial question would be as to whether the right to shelter which is part of the slum dwellers' right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, can be continued to be nullified by such actions of unconscionable delay on the part of the developer, in not commencing construction of the slum project even by an inch more particularly when the nature of such work awarded to a developer for him is purely a commercial venture, for profit.
3. The petitioner, who was appointed in the year 2003 by respondent No. 1-Slum Society, as a 'developer' to undertake its Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, under which not a single brick was laid by the petitioner for about 18 years, resulting in the petitioner's removal by the impugned order dtd. 4/8/2021 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (for short, the AGRC'), in exercise of powers under s0ection 13(2) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Slums Act'), is before the Court in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing such order, passed by of the AGRC.
4. By the impugned order dtd. 4/8/2021 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), an appeal filed by respondent No. 1-society against the decision of the Chief Execution Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority declining to remove the petitioner under sec. 13(2) of the Slums Act, has been allowed by the following order :
(i) Appointment of Respondent No. 2 M/s. Yash Developers in respect of S.R. Scheme on plot of land bearing CTS No. 515 (Pt.), 515B(Pt.) and 509 of Village Kanheri, Taluka Borivali corresponding to F.P. No. 14-AB(Pt) of TPS-II, Bor
The court affirmed the authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to remove a developer for inordinate delay and non-compliance with statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, em....
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority can terminate a developer's appointment for inordinate delays in scheme implementation, emphasizing the developer's obligation to act proactively.
[The court established that under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, the Competent Authority can terminate a developer's appointment based on ....
The court upheld the AGRC's decision to terminate the developer's appointment due to delays in implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, attributing responsibility to the developer for inaction po....
The CEO/SRA has the authority to terminate a Developer under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act for delays and non-performance in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, emphasizing timely completion for public b....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
