Prithvi Infra Projects v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

1. The petitioner, who is a developer seeks to impugn order dated 2 August 2023 passed by respondent No.2 – Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("CEO, SRA" for short) exercising power under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("the Slums Act" for short) and order dated 13 February 2024 passed by the respondent No.1 – Apex Grievance Redressal Committee ("AGRC" for short) in Application No.190 of 2023.

2. Land bearing F.P. No.663 of Town Planning Scheme No. III, Mahim Division at Kapad Bazar Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai 400 016 in G/North Ward area admeasuring 1961.55 sq. mtr. (“the said property” for short) belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM” for short) is occupied by slum dwellers and censused in the records of the MCGM.

3. On 24 August 1960, the Government of Bombay vide Notification sanctioned a Town Planning Scheme demarcating a "garden" on the said property. On 8 May 2018, the State Government, by Notification, granted sanction under Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act" for short) to the revised Development Plan of Greater Mumbai wherein the said property is designated as R.R.2.[1] (Rehabilitation and Resettlement). On 30 October 2019, the slum dwellers on the said property came together. They formed Millet-E- Society by holding general body meetings and, by the majority, appointed the petitioner as its developer for implementing the Slum Scheme (DCR-33(10) Scheme). On 28 November 2019, the petitioner and Millat-E-Society filed a proposal with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA" for short). On 4 December 2019, Millat-E-Society, through its officer bearers, executed a development agreement in favour of the petitioner for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme ("SR Scheme" for short). On 28 February 2020, the District Superintendent of Land Record – SRA granted NOC for the SR Scheme through the petitioner. On 11 March 2020, the Cooperative Department – SRA granted no objection to implementing the SR Scheme. On 11 March 2020, the Deputy Collector (Mumbai City) – SRA granted NOC to implement the SR Scheme. On 24 September 2020, SRA prepared the financial status of the developer (Annexure-III), holding that the petitioner has sufficient net worth for implementing the SR Scheme. On 7 April 2022, the petitioner paid scrutiny fees to the SRA. On 8 April 2022, SRA issued an acceptance letter in favour of the petitioner for implementing the SR Scheme on the said property.

4. On 13 September 2022, Assistant Commissioner, G/North Ward, issued eviction notices against slum dwellers under Section 89 of the MRTP Act for implementation of the plan of the garden as per the Town Planning Scheme of 1 September 1961. On 15 September 2022, the Engineering Department, SRA, issued a letter to the Tehsildar – 1 (Special Cell), SRA, for issuance of Annexure – II through the Competent Authority. On 19 September 2022, Tehsildar – 1 (Special Cell), SRA issued a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, G/North Ward (Competent Authority), for preparing a list of eligible slum dwellers (Annexure-II).

5. On 6 October 2022, the petitioner and the society filed a writ petition in this Court challenging notices dated 13 September 2022 issued under Section 89 of the MRTP Act. By order dated 12 October 2022, this Court recorded a statement of the MCGM that petitioners' representation will be decided in accordance with law and thereafter, for a period of two weeks, protected slum dwellers from eviction. However, according to the petitioners, on 23 November 2022, the Assistant Commissioner, G/North Ward, without deciding representation of the petitioners, issued an eviction notice under Section 90 of the MRTP Act against the occupants. The petitioners again filed a writ petition in this Court challenging said notices. However, by order dated 20 December 2022, the petitioner was deleted from the said writ petition.

6. On 23 December 2022, the Special General Body meeting of Millat-E-Society resolved to terminate the petitioner's appointment on the grounds of delay of four years and failure to take steps by the petitioner against eviction notices issued by the MCGM. On 2 January 2023, the society, through its chief promoter, intimated to the petitioner about the termination of his appointment as a developer. On the same day, the society communicated to the SRA to terminate the petitioner's appointment as a developer. On 23 January 2023, the Special General Body meeting of Millat-E- Society reiterated the termination decision and appointed HRUB Constructions LLP as a developer.

7. The petitioner filed its reply before SRA and submitted its explanation, among other things as under: (i) the petitioner filed a proposal on 28 November 2019 with SRA for implementation of the SR Scheme on land under reference; (ii) after that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, nationwide lockdown was imposed. Despite that, the petitioner made all efforts by continuously following up with SRA; (iii) Ultimately the SRA prepared report dated 4 April 2022 approving acceptance, subject to payment of LoI scrutiny fee;

(iv) SRA issued acceptance letter on 8 April 2022 in favour of the petitioner of the SR Scheme on the said property; (v) the petitioner referred to the no objection dated 11 March 2020 by Cooperative Department of SRA, letter dated 19 September 2022 by the Assistant Commissioner for preparing list of eligible slum dwellers and issuance of eviction notices defended by the petitioner at his own costs as the explanation for delay in implementation of the Scheme.

8. The CEO, SRA, on 2 August 2023, passed an order terminating the petitioner's appointment as a developer to implement the SR Scheme on the said property and granted liberty to appoint a new developer by passing a fresh general body resolution. The CEO of SRA terminated the petitioner's appointment as a developer for the implementation of the SR Scheme broadly on the following grounds: (i) Since the appointment of the petitioner in the year 2019, no approvals were obtained by the petitioner for the period of around four years. The delay is attributable to the petitioner; (ii) the reason of the delay due to the initiation of legal proceedings against society and challenging eviction notices was not accepted; (iii) the majority of slum dwellers have lost faith in the petitioner.

9. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order dated 2 August 2023 passed by respondent No.1 before the AGRC by filing Application No.190 of 2023. The petitioner raised three contentions before the AGRC, which are as under: (a) the reason for the delay in implementation of the Scheme was an interim order passed by this Court on 31 July 2002 in Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002; (b) situation of Covid lockdown; and (c) action taken by the MCGM to evict occupants and failure to process certification of Annexure-II.

10. However, the AGRC refused to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the application. Hence, the petitioner has filed a present writ petition.

11. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the CEO, SRA, had no power to terminate the authority of the developer to develop the SR Scheme in the absence of violation of the provisions of the Act or Agreement between the parties. Relying on a document at Exhibit – 1 prepared by SRA, he submitted that the officials of the SRA were under the impression that this Court, by order dated 31 July 2002, directed not to sanction a new rehabilitation scheme without permission of the Court. This bona fide impression of the officials of the SRA caused a delay in taking necessary steps. He submitted that there is no delay attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner had already taken necessary steps to implement the Scheme, including filing a writ petition by challenging eviction notices issued against the occupants. He submitted that the meeting conducted by the society was not in accordance with the Circulars of the SRA. According to him, the delay is attributable to the inaction on the part of the SRA and the officials of the MCGM.

12. Per contra, Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6, submitted that the explanation of the petitioner that the officials of the SRA were under bona fide impression that the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002 restrained them from sanctioning new scheme is raised only during the course of oral arguments in the present petition and it is not raised as a defence or explanation for the delay before the SRA in the original proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that such an explanation is nothing but an afterthought that would be of no assistance to the petitioner. He submitted that the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002 was unambiguous restraining sanction of the new rehabilitation scheme only in respect of open spaces, which are referred for gardens, parks, playgrounds, recreational spaces, maidans, no development zones, pavements, roads and carriageways. In the present case, undisputedly, the property is designated as R.R. 2.[1] (Rehabilitation and Resettlement). Therefore, there was no question of any impediment in implementing the SR Scheme over the said property. He submitted that from November 2019 till March 2020, the petitioner had ample opportunity to liaise with SRA to secure permissions. However, no steps were taken in four months till the onset of covid pandemic. From June 2020 (easing of restrictions) till April 2022, for almost a period of two years, the petitioner took no steps to ensure the development of the SR Scheme. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly terminated the petitioner's authority as a developer to implement the SR Scheme.

13. In this background, it would now be appropriate to consider the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the facts of the present case.

14. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, is the primary legislation governing slum redevelopment in Maharashtra. The Act aims to improve and clear slum areas, providing better living conditions for slum dwellers. It establishes the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), which is responsible for identifying slums, launching redevelopment operations, procuring land, issuing permits, and overseeing slum redevelopment programs. Under this Act, the SRA declares an area as a 'Slum Area' if it poses a danger to public health, safety, or convenience, lacks basic amenities, is overcrowded, unfit for human habitation, or is detrimental to public health, safety, or convenience. Once an area is declared a 'Slum Area', the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) can be initiated. Every slum structure existing prior to 01/01/1995 is treated as a protected structure, and every slum dweller whose name appears in the electoral rolls as of 1st January 1995 and continues to stay in the slum is eligible for rehabilitation. Eligible slum dwellers receive a free-of-cost self-contained unit for their own residence, called the Rehab Component. Developers are compensated for their efforts in the form of the Free Sale Component, which can be commercially exploited. The Development Control and Promotion Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 2034, governs the development of the SRS. The process involves forming a housing society by 51% or more slum dwellers, appointing a developer, submitting a proposal with requisite plans and documents, obtaining scrutiny fees, and receiving a Letter of Intent (LoI) with a layout plan from the SRA. The developer then provides slum dwellers with rent money or transit accommodation, demolishes their hutments, and constructs the Rehab Component. After completion, allotment takes place as per eligibility, and any remaining units are handed over to the government free of cost. The Slum Rehabilitation Act also includes provisions for establishing slum rehabilitation programs (SRS), ensuring slum dwellers' participation in the redevelopment process.