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 benefit.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

The Challenge

2. By this Petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 25 November 2020 passed by Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority under provisions of section 13 (2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) terminating his appointment to execute the subject Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and granting liberty to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3-Societies to appoint new Developer of their choice for execution of the Scheme. The order dated 25 November 2020 has been unsuccessfully challenged by Petitioner before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), which has dismissed the Application No.105 of 2020 filed by Petitioner by its judgment and order dated 31 May 2021, which is also subject matter of challenge in the Petition.

Facts

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that - land bearing CTS No.35 of Village Juhu, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District is owned by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The said plot of land is affected by slum structures. There is adjoining plot through which a nala/stream runs which is owned by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM). On MHADA land apparently there were 133 slum occupants whereas on MCGM (nala) land there were apparently 72 slum occupants. It appears that the structure occupiers on MHADA land have formed Respondent No.2-Society whereas the structure occupiers on MCGM (Nala) land have formed Respondent No.3, which is a proposed Society. It appears that on 22 November 1999, members of Respondent No.2-Society executed individual agreements with Petitioner giving their consent for development of MHADA land. Petitioner claims that he received more than 90% consent from such structure occupiers on MHADA land. A Development Agreement dated 9 May 2000 was executed by Respondent No.2-Society in Petitioner's favor for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on MHADA land. An Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 9 May 2000 was also executed in favor of Petitioner.

4. On 29 March 2002, MHADA issued Annexure-II in respect of its land in which out of the 133 structures, 121 structures and its occupiers were held eligible. For implementation of SRS, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued Letter of Intent (LOI) for construction of 180 tenements consisting of 19 commercial, 98 residential, 4 residential-cum-commercial, 54 project affected persons (PAP) and 5 amenity tenements. Supplementary Annexure-II were issued on 24 February 2003 and 3 May 2003 in respect of 20 additional occupants.

5. In the meantime the 72 occupants on adjoining Nala land owned by MCGM formed a proposed Society and adopted resolution appointing Petitioner as a Developer. Power of Attorney dated 15 May 2002 and Development Agreement dated 20 May 2002 were executed by Respondent No.3-proposed Society in favour of Petitioner. MCGM issued Annexure-II in respect of Nala land on 17 November 2003 in which out of 72 occupants, 52 were found eligible. On account of addition of neighbouring Nala land, SRA issued Revised LOI to Petitioner in respect of both the plots for construction of 184 tenements consisting of 141 rehab, 38 PAP and 5 amenity tenements. On 20 May 2004, S