The main legal point established in the judgment is that unilateral allotment of tenements by the developer is invalid and void, and must be conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and seniority list of slum dwellers.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, Petition is taken for final disposal.

2. The Writ Petition is filed by Petitioners aggrieved by the Order dated 19 December 2022 passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) upholding the Order dated 13 October 2022 passed by Tahsildar-2 (Special Cell) Slum Redevelopment Authority (Tehsildar). Also challenged is the Order dated 18 November 2022 passed by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (SRA), by which it is held allotment of tenement No. D-1508 made in favor of Respondent No. 4-Sangita Balu Zimal is valid and the direct allotment made by the developer in respect of the same tenement to Petitioners is invalid. On the complaint of Respondent No.4, Tehsildar passed an Order dated 13 October 2022 holding Petitioners to be an unauthorized occupant in respect of tenement No. D-1508 and has directed him to hand over the possession thereof to the estate officer of SRA. The Petitioners filed an Appeal before the AGRC, which has been rejected by Order dated 19 December 2022. Petitioners have accordingly filed the present Petition challenging the AGRC’s Order dated 19 December 2022, Tehsildar’s Order dated 13 October 2022 and Assistant Registrar Order’s dated 18 November 2022.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that SRA undertook the exercise of rehabilitation of Slum located on Plot bearing CTS No. 106, 106/1 to 5, 107, 107/1 to 9, 108, 109 (pt), 111(pt), 111/1 to 70, 77 80 to 132 and 112 (pt) of village Kurla, Mumbai. Respondent No. 6 came to be appointed as the Developer and a Letter of Intent (LoI) came to be issued on 9 September 2009 for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. It is Petitioner's case that in the original Annexure-II, his name was included in the list of eligible slum dwellers. It appears that in that Annexure – II, name of Respondent No.4 was also included but she was held ineligible with a remark ‘find production of proof prior 1.1.95’. It appears that all slum structures, including that of Petitioner and Respondent No. 4, have been demolished and rehabilitation building has been constructed and as many as 438 eligible slum dwellers have already been accommodated in the rehab building.

4. It appears that Respondent No.6-Developer had four vacant rehab tenements for being allotted to eligible slum dwellers. The Order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 18 November 2022 records that as against four available rehab tenements, 21 eligible slum dwellers were waiting for allotment.

5. In the above background, it appears that Petitioner was left out in the process of allotment of rehab tenement. Respondent No.6-developer sent a proposal dated 22 July 2021 to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies (SRA), stating that one rehab tenement in D-wing of the building was available for allotment and Petitioners were eligible for allotment of the same. The Developer therefore requested the Assistant Registrar to depute an Officer for allotment of the said tenement by lottery system. It appears that no decision was taken on the letter dated 22 July 2021. During pendency of that proposal, it appears that the Developer sent letter dated 1 March 2022, in reply to Assistant Registrar's letter, stating that four rehab tenements were reserved for four eligible slum dwellers viz. Kisan Sonba Kondhalkar, Sangita Balu Zimal (Respondent No. 4), Pandurang Gulabrao Atkari and Chandrakant Sopan More/ Bhiva Ananda Varkhade. The Developer further stated that the said four slum dwellers were included in the eligibility list but their cases remained pending for reverification and therefore their names were not included in the list of allotment. The developer further submitted that after re-verification of eligibility, the four reserved tenements would be allotted to the aforementioned four slum dwellers. Despite assurance given in letter dated 1 March 2022 and in the absence of any decision be