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, emphasizing adherence to timelines is critical for justice to slum dwellers.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge is maintained in the present Writ Petition to order dated 17.05.2022 passed by Respondents No.2 – Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short “CEO, SRA”) in suo moto proceedings initiated under Section 13 (2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short “the said Act”) and order dated 29.09.2022 passed by Respondent No.4 – Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (for short “AGRC”) in Appeal No.136 of 2022 confirming the order dated 17.05.2022. By virtue of the aforesaid twin orders, appointment of Petitioner as Developer of a slum rehabilitation scheme under the said Act stands terminated and confirmed. Being aggrieved by the twin orders, Petitioner is before the Court.

2. Such of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present Petition are delineated as herein under:

2.1. Private property bearing CTS No.G/406 (pt) and G/628 (pt) of Village Bandra, Murugan Chawl ad-measuring 2204.04 square meters (for short “the said property”) is the subject matter of Development. In the Development Plan the said property was shown reserved for a Municipal market. It was inundated with a slum. Sometime in the year 1996, occupants of the slum structures on the said property formed the Respondent No.3 – Society namely Murugan Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), a proposed slum dwellers’ Society.

2.2. On 14.07.1998, by a registered conveyance deed, Petitioner i.e. Shri Surjit Singh Arora, resident of Mumbai on behalf of M/s. Arora builders purchased the said property for consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- from its erstwhile owner. This is evident from Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition. On 04.09.1998, Additional Collector (Encroachments) and Controller, Mumbai Suburban District issued Annexure – II certifying 96 out of the total of 148 slum dwellers on the said property as eligible. On 10.10.1998, a slum scheme was sanctioned on the said property which at that time showed occupation of 153 slum dwellers who had formed the Respondent No.3 - Society. This is pleaded by the Petitioner.

2.3. On 17.10.1998, Petitioner was appointed as Developer and Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) was issued in his favour under Section 33(10) and Appendix IV of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES (for short “DCR”) and maximum Floor Space Index (for short “FSI”) of 2.409 was granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short “SRA”) as per rules. On 30.10.1998, Intimation of Approval (for short “IOA”) was issued in favour of Petitioner. On 18.05.1999, plinth Commencement Certificate (for short “CC”) was issued in favour of Petitioner for carrying out work upto plinth level of the rehab building only. However contrary thereto in the next 4 years, the Petitioner constructed the rehab building comprising of ground plus 7 floors with 116 rehab tenements admeasuring 225 square feet carpet area therein.

2.4. On 29.11.2003, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued a stop work notice to the Petitioner seeking clarification for carrying out construction of the rehab building beyond the approved plan and CC on the ground that under the Coastal Regulation Zone (for short “CRZ”) Notification, permissible FSI was 1.00 whereas the amended slum rehabilitation scheme was submitted for FSI above 1.25.

2.5. On 05.03.2004, SRA agreed to regularize the unauthorized construction carried out by Petitioner on the basis of a Report prepared by the Respondent No.1’s Engineering department which observed that Petitioner carried o