Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Sushanku Builders Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee – Respondent
Judgment:
1) Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging the order dated 8 January 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) allowing the appeal preferred by Respondent No.2-society and setting aside order dated 6 August 2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO/SRA) and terminating the appointment of Petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). The AGRC has directed Respondent No.2-Society to implement the subject Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) through newly appointed developer. Petitioner is aggrieved by termination of his appointment as a developer for implementation of the subject SRS and has accordingly filed the present Petition challenging order dated 8 January 2024 passed by the AGRC.
2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.2-Society was formed on 8 June 1992 by slum dwellers situated at plot bearing City Survey No.629(pt) admeasuring 5367 sq.mts, Bandra Mumbai. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) granted lease in respect of the encroached plot bearing CTS No.629 (pt) for improvement/rehabilit
The court upheld the AGRC's decision to terminate the developer's appointment due to delays in implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, attributing responsibility to the developer for inaction po....
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, em....
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority can terminate a developer's appointment for inordinate delays in scheme implementation, emphasizing the developer's obligation to act proactively.
AGRC lacks original jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Slum Act to adjudicate disputes not referred by the State Government; it can only exercise appellate authority.
The court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding land area and project delays are not suitable for Writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for timely completion of slum rehabilitation projec....
The court upheld the validity of ongoing proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, affirming that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to present its case and that the impugned decision....
slum-dwellers who belong to the weaker sections of the society are to be rehabilitated by providing them reasonable housing thereby protecting them from eviction and distress warrants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
