The AGRC is empowered to condone delays in appeals under Section 35(1A) of the Slum Act, despite the absence of explicit provisions, viewed as a drafting error.

JUDGMENT

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

2. This Petition raises the issue as to whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) is clothed with power to condone the delay for entertaining Appeals filed under Section 35(1A) of Slum Act. The issue arises in the light of challenge raised by Petitioner to Order dated 23 February 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) by which delay of 62 days in filing Appeal has been condoned. Petitioner claims that AGRC is not vested with power under provisions of Slum Act to condone delay while entertaining appeals filed under Section 31(1A) of the Act.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that land bearing C.T.S. No. 1973 (pt) of Ghatkopar, admeasuring 5780.10 sq. mtrs. is occupied by members of Respondent No.4-Society. The Society resolved to redevelop the said land by implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS). The larger portion of CTS No. 1973 (pt) admeasuring 8457.6 sq. mtrs. was declared as Slum Area under Section 4 of the Slum Act by the Competent Authority on 23 October 1980. Respondent No.4-Society made Application to the Additional Collector for acquisition of entire land admeasuring 8457.6 sq. mtrs. A report was submitted to the Government of Maharashtra for acquisition of the land. The Government called for certain clarification and ultimately Respondent No.4-Society restricted its claim for acquisition of land admeasuring 3592 sq. mtrs. and the same was acquired on 20 May 2003. It appears that, MMRDA acquired land admeasuring 1170 sq. mtrs. out of 3592.07 sq. mtrs. for Andheri-Kurla Road and 78 Slum Dwellers residing in the said acquired portion of land by MMRDA were allotted permanent alternate accommodations at Govandi. There was apparently some confusion about acquisition of the exact portion of land and finally after some litigation, it appears that, balance portion of land admeasuring 2188.03 sq mtrs. was yet to be acquired. Accordingly, Respondent-Society filed application dated 24 March 2014 for acquisition of land admeasuring 2188.03 sq. mtrs. under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act. The Respondent No.4-Society also applied on 7 June 2016 for declaration of land admeasuring 2188.03 sq. mtrs. as Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C of the Slum Act. SRA declared the said portion of land as Slum Rehabilitation Area on 26 August 2016. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.54 of 2017, which was disposed of by granting an opportunity of hearing while deciding Society's Application for acquisition under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act. In the above background proceedings were conducted before CEO/SRA for acquisition of land admeasuring 2188.03 sq. mtrs. The proceedings were opposed by Petitioner. After hearing parties, CEO/SRA rejected the application dated 24 May 2014 for acquisition of land admeasuring 2188.03 sq. mtrs. by passing Order dated 13 December 2021.

4. Aggrieved by Order dated 13 December 2021, Respondent No.4- Society filed Appeal before AGRC on 14 March 2022. The same was numbered as Appeal No.87 of 2022. There was delay of 62 days in filing the Appeal and for condonation of which, Respondent No.4 filed an Application. Petitioner opposed the Application for Condonation of Delay by filing reply on 23 August 2023 and contended inter alia that AGRC does not have power to condone delay under the provisions of the Slum Act. The AGRC, however, proceeded to pass Order dated 23 February 2024 allowing the Application for Condonation of Delay. Petitioner has filed present Petition challenging AGRC's Order dated 23 February 2024.

5. Dr. Chandrachud the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that AGRC has not been clothed with the power to condone delay under the provisions of the Slum Act. He would submit that the AGRC