The court affirmed that developers under the Slum Rehabilitation Act have a statutory duty to complete projects timely, with accountability for delays justifying termination of agreements.

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

I. Introduction :

2. The present controversy is a manifestation of common battles between competing real estate developers under the pretext of rehabilitating slum dwellers under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Hereinafter, referred to as the “Act”.). In the year 2003, the appellant was appointed as a developer by respondent no. 1, a co-operative Housing Society of slum dwellers having their hutments on the subject land in Borivali, Mumbai which was declared as a ‘slum area’ under the Act. As the development was unduly prolonged for over two decades, the development agreement in favour of the appellant was terminated by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (For short, the ‘AGRC’) by its order dated 04.08.2021. The order of termination was challenged by the appellant before the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition (L) No. 18022 of 2021).

3. The Bombay High Court formulated the following issues:

“(i) A developer being removed on the non-fulfillment of the basic requirement to commence construction of a slum rehabilitation building for a long period of 18 years, whether is not fatal to the object and intention of a statutory intent behind a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

(ii) Another question would be as to whether the right to shelter which is part of the slum dwellers’ right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, can be continued to be nullified by such actions of unconscionable delay on the part of the developer, in not commencing construction of the slum project even by an inch more particularly when the nature of such work awarded to a developer for him is purely a commercial venture, for profit.”

4. Apart from the above two issues, the High Court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution against the decision of the statutory authority-AGRC. The High Court, however, proceeded to examine the facts in full detail and dismissed the writ petition on facts, as well as on law (By judgment dated 14.10.2022, reported as 2022 SCC Online Bom 3712, hereinafter referred to as the impugned Judgment.). Thus, the present appeal.

5. Even before us, the appellant argued the case only on facts, to the extent that we were under an illusion that we were hearing suit for specific performance involving an issue of ready and willingness. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length on facts, we will certainly deal with their submissions, but before that we must reiterate the limited scope of inquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution.

II. Scope of Judicial Review against an order under Section 13 of the Act:

6. In this case, as in any other public law proceedings, we are concerned with the legality and validity of the power exercised by the AGRC in terminating the development agreement with the appellant by its order dated 04.08.2021. This order is in exercise of power under Section 13 of the Act which is as under:

“ 13. Power of Competent Authority to redevelop clearance area:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 12 the Competent Authority may, at any time, after the land has been cleared of buildings in accordance with a clearance order, but before the work of redevelopment of that land has been commenced by the owner, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its own cost, if that Authority is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.

(2) Where land has been cleared of the buildings in accordance with a clearance order, the Competent Authority, if it is satisfied that the land has been, or is being, redeveloped by the owner thereof in contravention of plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12, or has not been redeveloped within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, may, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its own cost .

Provided that