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 post-CEO/SRA's order.

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/rehabilitation. The plot consists of 236 slum dwellings, of which 220 structures were certified by MHADA and declared eligible by Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The Society resolved for appointment of Petitioner as developer for implementation of the subject SRS and executed development agreement dated 11 April 1994. Petitioner received consent of 73% of eligible slum dwellers. On 30 July 2002, SRA issued Letter of Intent (LO I) in Petitioner’s favour. According to Petitioner, the subject SRS could not be implemented on account of lack of clarity on the issue of implementation of the SRS in respect of land reserved in the development plan for recreational ground. The SRA issued revised LOI on 27 December 2010 for increased entitlement of 269 sq.ft. rehab tenements. According to Petitioner, after clarification of issue relating to implementation of slum scheme on the plot reserved for recreational ground, Petitioner started taking steps for implementation of SRS from the year 2012 onwards. It arranged for shifting of 60 structure occupiers to transit accommodations and also initiated proceedings under Sections 34 and 38 of the Slum Act for eviction of remaining slum dwellers. According to Petitioner, SRA approved building plans for construction of rehab building ‘A’ by issuance of Commencement Certificate dated 12 March 2012.

3) It is Petitioner’s case that some of the disgruntled slum dwellers who desired implementation of the SRS through another developer of their choice, started agenda for development of the Plot under Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR) instead of implementing the same under DCR 33(10) towards alleged entitlement of tenements of higher area (400 sq.ft.) instead of 225-275 sq.ft. Accordingly, they moved Application No.334 of 2013 before the High Powered Committee seeking cancellation of LOI and revised LOI as well as all permissions issued in favour of the Petitioner. By order dated 3 October 2015, the Committee disposed of the said application without granting any relief in favour of the three slum dwellers.

4) On 4 October 2015, Respondent No.2-Society adopted a resolution for implementation of SRS under DCR 33(5) and thereafter filed an application before the CEO/SRA for implementation of SRS under DCR 33(5) and not under DCR 33(10). The society also complained of delay on the part of the Petitioner in implementing the SRS and alleged that Petitioner no longer enjoyed consent of 75% slum dwellers. CEO/SRA rejected Society’s application by order dated 16 June 2017 holding that it was impermissible to develop the plot under DCR 33(5) and that SRS could be implemented only under DCR 33(10). Respondent No.2-Society challenged the order of CEO/SRA dated 16 June 2017 before the AGRC. The AGRC rejected societ