Free sale rights under slum rehabilitation schemes are contingent upon fulfilling obligations; failure to do so results in loss of rights, and actions by authorities must adhere to legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) Before us there are two interconnected Writ Petitions.

2) In Writ Petition No.747 of 2024, Petitioners-Jadhawani’s seek the following substantive reliefs:

“a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the papers and files leading to granting the permission for the conversion of the scheme as per Government order dated 23/04/2013 at Exhibit ‘F’ and Conversion of the scheme as per the provisions of DCPR 2034 and approvals / sanctions / permissions / IOA / Reports / Letter of Intent / Commencement Certificate / Further Commencement Certificates / Occupation Certificate in respect to the Existing Composite Building No.1 and proposed Rehab Building No.2 and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the approval granted for Conversion of Composite Building No.1 and the approval granted for demolition of the Composite Building No.1 vide LOI dated05/12/2019 at Exhibit ‘I’

b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the I.O.A. dated 10/02/2020 at Exhibit ‘M’ issued for Rehab Building No.1 for construction of new rehab Building by Demolition of the existing Building No.1 on land bearing CTS Nos. 825/1(pt) & 825/2 (pt) of Village Ambivali, Andheri (West), Mumbai;

c) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 to provide the Petitioners sale shop on Ground to Second floor in the sale building to be approved by the Respondent no.2 on land bearing CTS Nos. 825/1 (pt) & 825/2 (pt) of Village Ambivali, Andheri (West), Mumbai in case of the demolition of the Petitioners shops in the Composite Building no.1.”

3) In Writ Petition No.3865 of 2024, Petitioners-Chamankar’s seek the following substantive reliefs:

“(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court and issue such order and/or directions to stop the demolition of the Composite Building No. 1 on the plot bearing CTS no. 825/1 (pt) & 825/2 (pt), situated at Village Ambivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai and call for the papers and records and file pertaining to the Composite Building No. 1 along with all sanctions, permissions, reports, certificates and after scrutinizing the same the legality and propriety thereof be considered and all such approvals, sanctions and permissions of conversions be quashed and set aside granting approval and permission for conversion of the said Composite Building No. 1 along with the demolition permission of the building vide LOI dated27^th July 2023;

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to cancel and set aside the said LOI dated 27^th July 2023, IOA dated 25^th August 2023, permission to allow demolition by letter dated 17^th May 2024 and private report dated1/4/2024 of Sardar Patel College of Engineering;”

4) In Writ Petition No.3865 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seeks a direction to the Respondents to stop the demolition of the composite building, which has been declared as dilapidated and classified as “C-1” based on a report allegedly procured by Respondent No. 3 in collusion with Respondent No 2. The Petitioners further challenge the legality and validity of Letters of Intent (LOI) dated 27^th July 2023 and Intimation of Approval (IOA) dated 25^th August 2023, both issued in favour of Respondent No.3. The Petition highlights a breach of statutory duties and obligations by Respondent No. 2-SRA, who at the behest of Respondent No.3-Developer secured demolition permissions based on a private institute’s report, without adhering to the due process of law.

5) Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned senior counsel representing the Respondent No.3 – Developer, raises a preliminary objection regarding the Petitioner’s locus standi to challenge the building’s demolition. He contends that the Petitioner-Chamankars’ is none other than the former Developer who was removed