M/s. Sateri Builders and Developers LLP v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority

(vii) On 29.12.2020, Respondent No.1 referred Draft Annexure II submitted by Developer alongwith proposal to Assistant Municipal Commissioner and Competent Authority, K/East Ward (for short “Competent Authority”) for verification, approval and certification.

(viii) On 03.01.2021, public notice was issued by Competent

Authority for carrying out survey of the larger property on or about 11.01.2021 for verification of documents of slum dwellers and finalization of Draft Annexure II.

(ix) On 07.01.2021, 7 occupants / slum dwellers from the adjacent DP Road area lodged a complaint objecting acceptance of Developer’s proposal upon which Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA passed a remark. In the meanwhile, Competent Authority completed its survey and verified documents of slum dwellers and prepared Draft Annexure II of total 105 slum dwellers / structures on 19.01.2021 and forwarded the same to Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA.

(x) On 03.02.2021, Developer’s and Respondent No.4 - Shree

Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS’s proposal was however recorded as illegal and bad in law, without issuing show cause notice to 6 of 68 Developer or Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS and without hearing them. It was recorded that the Developer could challenged the said decision in Court or Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA can and/or revoke and/or cancel their decision dated 03.02.2021 or the Developer can submit a fresh proposal in the alternative.

(xi) After holding a meeting with the officials of Respondent

Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA on 08.02.2021, Developer alongwith Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS submitted a fresh proposal.

(xii) On 18.02.2021, Developer’s Architect submitted a fresh proposal to Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA for redevelopment of the property of Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS ad-measuring 4442.95 square meters. Alongwith the proposal Developer submitted requisite and necessary documents which were verified and accepted and pursuantly referred thereto to the 5 Departments of SRA for issuing fresh NOC.

(xiii) On 23.02.2021 and 24.02.2021, the 5 Departments of SRA issued NOC to the Developer and fresh Report for acceptance was prepared on 24.02.2021. 7 of 68

(xiv) On 25.02.2021, an Administrative Decision was taken by

Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 for acceptance of the fresh proposal received from the Developer and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS and LOI scrutiny fees was paid by Developer pursuant thereto.

(xv) Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 thereafter issued show cause notices to the occupants / persons interested to show cause as to why the property of Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS should not be declared as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the said Act. In response to the show cause notices, Respondent No.9 – Society of slum dwellers on the adjacent proposed DP Road, who was not concerned with the property of Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS appeared before Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA and filed objections for declaration of the area as slum rehabilitation area.

(xvi) On 23.08.2021, property occupied by Respondent No.4 -

Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS was declared as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the said Act and appropriate Notification of declaration was published in the Government Gazette on 08.09.2021. 8 of 68

(xvii) Competent Authority prepared provisional Annexure II of slum dwellers on the property occupied by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS as also the dwellers on the adjacent DP Road, published the same inviting objections and suggestions to the provisional Annexure II. Final Annexure II was published on 15.05.2021 by the Maintenance Department, K/East Ward, MCGM pertaining to all slum dwellers including that of the DP Road adjacent to the property occupied by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS. This was done for removal of structures coming in the way of alignment / road widening of the proposed 90’ Dayaldas Road i.e. DP Road adjacent to final plot No.187. Out of the contesting Respondents who are opposing the Writ Petitions, Respondent Nos.[5] and 7 are beneficiaries of the SR Scheme implemented on the larger property, even though their structures fall in the area adjacent to the DP Road. In effect, SR Scheme on the property occupied by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS has accommodated and adjusted the slum dwellers from the adjacent proposed DP Road.

(xviii) In view of the above, for the first time Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 raised objection and filed Application No.169 of 2021 before Respondent No.10 – AGRC under Section 35(1A) of the said 9 of 68 Act to challenge the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021 and all consequential steps taken thereafter accepting the proposal submitted by Developer and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS.

(xix) Considering delay in filing the Application, Respondent

(xx) Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA, MCGM being the land owning authority and the Competent Authorities took steps for approving Developer and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS’s proposal to implement the SR Scheme. All sanctions and permissions viz. Annexure III (relating to financial capacity), LOI, Intimation of Approval (for short “IOA”) and for eviction and demolition of slum dwellers on the larger property for implementation of the SR Scheme for construction of rehab building were received and undertaken. In this process, upto the date of passing of the impugned orer, 52 structures of slum dwellers standing on the larger property are vacated and handed over to the Developer for implementation of the SR Scheme; these 52 structures are already demolished for commencement of construction of rehab building while awaiting 10 of 68 Commencement Certificate (for short “CC”) to be issued by the Competent Authority.

(xxi) On 11.04.2021, Competent Authority passed order permitting Developer and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS to implement the SR Scheme on the plot admeasuirng 4442.95 square meters alongwith the eligible slum dwellers from the adjacent DP Road area and directed the Developer to consider and include all eligible slum dwellers / occupants from the proposed DP Road area in the SR Scheme.

(xxii) Both plots of land admittedly stood in the ownership of

(xxiii) Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 by letter dated 02.05.2022 called upon the Developer to pay 25% of the market value as per ready reckoner of the area under development towards land premium alongwith other necessary charges for seeking sanction and implementation of the SR Scheme. Between 29.04.2022 and 10.05.2022, Developer incurred a total expenditure of Rs.36,19,375/- towards legal expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards website charges, Rs.30,20,375/- towards land premium, Rs.63,700/- towards IOA deposit for rehab building and Rs.30,300/- towards IOA charges for the rehab building. 11 of 68

(xxiv) LOI dated 04.05.2022 was issued to Developer with a specific condition that Developer will have to rehabilitate all eligible slum dwellers from the adjoining DP Road in the Respondent No.4’s sanctioned ongoing SR Scheme on the final plot No.187. All requisite conditions of LOI dated 04.05.2022 are admittedly complied with by Developer and proposal submitted to Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA for approval of the building plan of rehab building. Proposal is approved by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 i.e. SRA and IOA dated 10.05.2022 for rehab building comprising of 189 rehab units / tenements and six amenities alongwith Project Affected Persons (for short “PAP”) tenements in favour of Developer.

(xxv) On 15.05.2022, Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA)

CHS held its General Body Meeting and passed Resolution agreeing to accept compensation / transit rent @ 21,000/per month totally amounting to Rs.2,52,000/- for the initial period of 12 months from the Developer.

(xxvi) Pursuant to above, 86 members of Respondent No.4 - Shree

Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS accept the compensation / cheque for transit rent and 62 members vacate their structures / hutments and hand them over to the Developer for 12 of 68 demolition. On the date of filing of the Petitions, 52 structures already stood demolished as stated earlier.

(xxvii) In the meanwhile, Application No.169 of 2021 was heard by

Respondent No.10 – AGRC after condoning the delay by order dated 10.06.2022. Developer contested the said Application raising several issues and placed the above timeline and sought dismissal of the same.

(xxviii) In addition, it was pointed out by Developer that by letter dated 05.02.2021, one M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. raised objection to the Developer;s proposal before Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA. Developer’s objections were duly supported by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS before the AGRC on the ground that the Developer had already initiated implementation of the SR Scheme and taken various steps as delineated herein above.

(xxix) After hearing parties, AGRC allowed the Application No.169 of 2021 filed by private Respondents Nos.[5] to 9 and set aside the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021 of Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA accepting Developer and Respondent No.4’s - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS’s proposal / SR Scheme. 13 of 68

(xxx) Hence Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 is filed by the Developer and Writ Petition No.528 of 2023 is filed by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS, both challenging AGRC’s order dated 28.07.2022.

6. Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner i.e. Developer in Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 would at the outset submit that, Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 have no locus standi to challenge the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021 as the Competent Authority while accepting proposal of the Developer put the onerous condition on the Developer to rehabilitate all occupants from the DP Road in its Scheme to be implemented on final plot No.187. Next, he would submit that Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 cannot be termed as aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 35(1A) of the said Act as their rights are fully protected and they are infact beneficiaries of the said SR Scheme.

6.1. Next he would submit that Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 being beneficiaries of the SR Scheme are estopped from challenging the Scheme and as they being beneficiaries cannot decide which Society or which Developer should implement the SR Scheme as they have a very limited right in that regard and that is to be entitled to rehab tenement / project affected tenement and nothing more. 14 of 68

6.2. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 at the behest of a rival Developer namely M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. have filed Application on 06.02.2021 with Respondent No.1 – SRA contending that they have appointed the said Developer. He would question the locus and authority of these Respondents to maintain such an action. He would submit that Mr. Parag Alvani, local MLA is associated with M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and has filed several complaints and objections against implementation of the present SR Scheme by the Developer in the present case separately. He would submit that this is nothing but a proxy litigation between two Developers, though the second Developer has arrived rather belatedly on the scene and now wants to hijack the project with the aid of a miniscule minority who have no right whatsoever save and except to get their rehab tenement.

6.3. He would submit that the Developer submitted proposal to Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA in accordance with Circular No.144 and the same was duly scrutinized and approved by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA, after which they passed the Administrative Decision dated 25.01.2021 to accept the proposal and this Administrative Decision cannot be challenged before the Respondent No.10 – AGRC as the slums cannot be continued to proliferate on the adjacent proposed DP Road since the land owning authority i.e. MCGM is the same. 15 of 68

6.4. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[5] to 8 are infact occupants / slum dwellers / members of Respondent No.9 – Society on the DP Road owned by MCGM. These slum dwellers / occupants on the DP Road do not have any vested right, title and interest in the Final Plot No.187 occupied by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS and right pertains to rehab tenements, if they are eligible.

6.5. He would submit that Respondent No.10 – AGRC has committed an error by not considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Avadhesh V. Tiwari and Ors. Vs. CEO, SRA and Ors.[1] and also overlooked the fact that Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 are occupants / slum dwellers on the DP Road and are therefore infact PAPs i.e. Project Affected Persons who will have no right to challenge the SR Scheme being implemented on the adjacent Final Plot No.187. He would submit that Respondent No.10 – AGRC has erroneously come to the conclusion that the Developer has carved out an area of Respondent No.9 Society when on the contrary, the Developer has given an undertaking and indemnity before the Competent Authority as well as Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA that he shall accommodate all eligible slum dwellers on the D. P. road area in the subject SR Scheme by adopting the due process of law.

6.6. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA did not open or revive the Developer’s first proposal since the Developer 1 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 282 16 of 68 submitted a fresh proposal to Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA and obtained fresh NOCs from the five Departments of Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA and only thereafter Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA passed the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021. Therefore there was neither any illegality nor irregularity in passing the Administrative Decision.

6.7. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA earlier had a prescribed procedure for accepting, processing and approval of SR Schemes which was continued from 1997 till 2013. Thereafter Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA changed its procedure and issued Circular No.144 dated 31.08.2013 which required submission of proposal and obtaining NOC from the 5 Departments of Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA and only after obtaining the 5 NOCs, Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA could accept the proposal. Therefore there was no question of applying the earlier procedure followed by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA to this case and therefore the decision in the case of Atesham Ahmed Khan Vs. Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd.[2] cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He would submit that Respondent No.10 – AGRC thus committed a clear error of law by relying on the decision of Ateshan Ahmed Khan (2nd supra) because of the change of procedure under Circular No.144 for accepting, processing and approving the SR Scheme. 2 (2011) 3 Mh.L.J. 604 17 of 68

6.8. He would submit that during pendency of Application No.169 of 2021, the Developer and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS complied with all statutory compliances and conditions after which Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA by order dated 08.09.2021 declared the property occupied by Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the said Act. He would submit that Developer has in the meanwhile paid an exorbitant amount by way of land premium, legal charges etc. and thereafter Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA have approved the SR Scheme and issued LOI dated 04.05.2022, approved the building plan of the rehab building and issued IOA on 10.05.2022 and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS has passed resolution dated 15.05.2022 to accept the transit rent / compensation and as on the date of filing of the Petitions around 83 occupants / slum dwellers of Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS have accepted the cheques towards transit rent / compensation and have handed over their tenements / structures to the Developer for demolition.

6.9. He would submit that Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 have not challenge the LOI dated 04.05.2022 and /or IOA dated 10.05.2022 in its Application No.169 of 2021 and therefore Respondent No.10 – AGRC ought to have permitted the Developer to carry out redevelopment of the SR Scheme in accordance with the permissions / 18 of 68 sanctions granted by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA. He would submit that the Committee constituted by Respondent No.10 – AGRC to conduct hearing of Application No.169 of 2021 was not properly constituted as Respondent No.2 – CEO, SRA was himself the member of the Committee of Respondent No.10 – AGRC which adjudicated upon his own order which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

6.10. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court:-

(i) Susme Builders Private Limited Vs. Chief Executive

(ii) Indian Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors[4].

6.11. Mr. Kadam has drawn my attention to paragraph Nos.51 to 53 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Susme Builders Private Limited (3rd supra) as being directly relevant to the facts of the present case. The said paragraph Nos.51 to 53 read thus:- “Whether the SRA has any other power to remove the developer

51. Even if we were to assume that the SRA did not enjoy this power under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, we are of the considered view that since it was the SRA which issued this letter of intent, it necessarily must have the power to cancel the same. The SRA can also derive this power under clauses (c) and

(d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Slum Act, which read as under:

19 of 68 “3-A. Slum Rehabilitation Authority for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint an authority to be called the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification; and different authorities may be appointed for different areas. *** (3) The powers, duties and functions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be— ***

(c) to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme implemented;

(d) to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary for achieving the objects of rehabilitation of slums.”

52. A bare reading of these provisions shows that in terms of clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Slum Act, the SRA not only has the power, but it is duty-bound to get the slum rehabilitation scheme implemented and to do all such other acts and things as will be necessary for achieving the object of rehabilitation of slums. In this case, the SRA was faced with a situation where the slum-dwellers were suffering for more than 25 years and, therefore the action taken by SRA to remove Susme for the unjustified delay was totally justified.

53. A perusal of the various provisions of the Slum Act would show that normally in a case falling under the Slum Act, it is the owner of the land, whether it be the Government, a statutory authority or a private person, who will be interested in the development work. Normally, the occupiers will be encroachers of slum land. Therefore, there will be a conflict of interest between the occupiers and the owner. The owner, in turn, will always engage a developer/builder to carry out the development work. In case the owner gives a power of attorney to the developer, as in the present case, the developer now has two identities — (i) the power-of-attorney holder of the owner, and (ii) the developer. As far as the present case is concerned, the Society is made up of the members who are occupiers and this Society has given power of attorney to the developer Susme. Therefore, the developer Susme is actually having a dual role of owner and developer. Both the letters of intent have been issued in favour of the Society, Susme and the architects of Susme. Susme could not have carried out the development work on the basis of its agreement with the Society. It needed the permission of the SRA. Therefore, SRA can obviously revoke such permission.” 20 of 68

6.12. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, he would submit that the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.10 – AGRC is not tenable and deserves to be quashed and set aside as SRA has rightly appointed the Developer and is duty bound to get the Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS’s SR Scheme implemented with the larger objective of rehabilitation of all slum dwellers including those on the adjacent DP road area.

7. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the Developer and for the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated herein. He would therefore submit that the order dated 28.07.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7.1. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari and Ors. Vs. Chief Executive

(ii) Balasaheb Arjun Torbole and Ors. Vs. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner and Ors.5; and

(iii) Indian Co-operative Housing Society and Ors. Ltd. Vs.

8. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA has drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26.08.2022 filed by the Executive Engineer, SRA on behalf of Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 and would submit that on 02.12.2020 the Developer submitted a proposal on Final Plot No.187 for Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS as per Circular No.144 and thereafter it was verified by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA on the basis if there were any other proposals pending in respect of the same plot of land on that date and after due verification the proposal was forwarded for further consideration and processed. He would submit that consent obtained by Developer was verified vide Annexure - V issued on 11.12.2020 and on 15.12.2020, NOC for Annexure II was granted by the Deputy Collector, SRA as also the Finance Controller had verified the SR Scheme. So also the ownership of the land was after completion of the said compliances, the Town Planning Department of Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA verified the scheme vide Annexure VI issued on 16.12.2020 and on 21.12.2020, the proposal of SR Scheme was therefore accepted by the Engineering Department.

8.1. He would further submit that on 22.12.2020, Annexure II was forwarded to Deputy Collector by the Engineering Department and the same was thereafter forwarded to the Competent Authority for preparation of Final Annexure II. He would submit that when it was 22 of 68 found that tenements were situated on the adjacent proposed DP Road which were obstructing the widening of the existing Dayaldas Road, such contravening structures were initially not included in the SR Scheme when Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA vide letter dated 03.02.2021 recorded the SR Scheme of the Developer. He would submit that on 08.02.2021 a meeting was therefore convened in the Chamber of Respondent No.2 – CEO, SRA alongwith the Developer and members of Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS and in the said meeting the Developer was told to include the slum dwellers from the adjacent DP road and he and the Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS accepted to include these slum structures from the adjacent DP Road in their SR Scheme.

8.2. He would next submit that accordingly on 22.02.2021, Developer’s Architect submitted a fresh proposal for acceptance as per Circular No.144 and thereafter the entire procedure adopted by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 as mentioned herein above was followed once again and accordingly on 23.02.2021 and 24.02.2021, NOCs were granted to the Developer. Thereafter on 15.03.2021, objections were raised by some occupants / slum dwellers regarding declaration of Final Plot No.187 as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the said Act, after which hearing was given by Respondent No.2 – CEO, SRA and thereafter on 10.02.2021 public notices were issued in compliance of Section 3C of the said Act and on 08.09.2021 final 23 of 68 Notification of declaration of the said property as slum was notified in the Gazette. Next, he would submit that on 10.08.2021 Draft Annexure II was received from MCGM and on 21.03.2022 letter was given by the Competent Authority for cancellation of Annexure II and after seeking clarification from the Developer on 29.03.2022, Competent Authority issued letter dated 11.04.2022 categorically stating that letter dated 21.03.2022 stood cancelled and Annexure II issued earlier was reinstated and processed for further approval. Accordingly on 04.05.2022, LOI was issued to Developer and on 10.05.2022, IOA was issued for a composite development by the Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA for all slum dwellers.

8.3. Finally, he would submit that Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA complied with all procedural formalities as contemplated in Circular No.144 and the said Act to the hilt. Hence, he would submit that the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021 has been correctly passed by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA. In effect, this is a case wherein the SRA fully supports appointment of the Developer, but the AGRC is opposed to the same.

9. PER-CONTRA, submissions made by Mr. Kumbhakoni and Mr. Chinoy, learned Senior Advocates, on behalf of Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 in both Writ Petitions are almost identical. Hence for the sake of brevity, they are delineated hereinunder together. Additional 24 of 68 submissions made by both the learned Senior Advocates are also adverted to separately.

9.1. On behalf of the contesting Respondents, it is submitted that the proposal submitted by the Developer was in respect of Final Plot No.187 admeasuring 4222.95 square meters only whereas slum scheme sanction is accorded for an area admeasuring 4973.40 square meters and hence proposal submitted and scheme sanctioned are clearly at variance and therefore impermissible in law. It is submitted that proposal submitted by the Society admittedly excluded the eligible slum dwellers / occupants on the DP Road admeasuring 535.55 square meters. It is submitted that such exclusion was with the malafide intent of circumventing the mandatory requirement of 51% consent of eligible slum dwellers for the SR Scheme as per Circular No.144. It is submitted that such an incomplete proposal not being in accordance with law ought not to have been accepted and sanctioned in the first instance itself.

9.2. It is submitted that that in furtherance of the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by AGRC, a fresh proposal has now been submitted by Respondent No.9 and M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (New Developer) for the total area of Final Plot No.187 (including the DP Road area of 535.[5] square meters) ad-measuring 4973.40 square meters on 29.07.2022. This new / fresh proposal is identical to 25 of 68 the first proposal submitted by Sugma Construction on behalf of Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS for the area admeasuring 4973.40 square meters comprising of 164 occupants / slum dwellers originally. However, since Sugma Construction did not take steps due to unforeseen circumstances and difficulties, it was rejected by SRA. Thereafter Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS appointed Petitioner – Developer for implementing the SR Scheme. However, since majority of slum dwellers were not in favour of appointing Petitioner as Developer, the Developer submitted the Scheme only on behalf of 101 members on Final Plot No.187 (4442.95) excluding the slum dwellers on the D.P. Road who were opposed to the appointment.

9.3. It is submitted that therefore the Developer’s proposal is incomplete in all respects as per the statutory requirement under Circular No.144 and it ought to have been rejected. It is submitted that SRA initially stayed the proposal of the Developer on the complaints made by Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 and a local BJP MLA Mr. Parag Alvani and ultimately by order dated 03.02.2021 recorded the said proposal as illegal.

9.4. It is submitted that once the proposal is rejected by Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA, fresh proposal dated 18.02.2021 cannot be submitted by the same Developer for an increased area as it is 26 of 68 incumbent upon the Developer to get fresh approvals. It is submitted that in the fresh proposal, Developer and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS have now agreed to accommodate the occupants / slum dwellers on the Dayaldas Road (proposed D.P. Road portion adjoining the larger property), however these eligible slum dwellers admittedly do not find place in the original proposal submitted and sanctioned for the area of 4442.95 square meters of Final Plot No.187 i.e. the larger property only. Hence it is clear that Developer has intended to rehabilitate the occupants / slum dwellers of the DP Road area (535.[5] square meters) as per Regulation 33(12) (B) of DCR 2034 and not as per DCPR 33(10).

9.5. It is submitted that in the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021 there is a reference to the Report of the Deputy Director of Town Planning wherein it is specifically opined that the entire final plot (4973.40 square meters) has not been taken into consideration for implementing the SR Scheme and it would be appropriate to consider the entire plot for effective implementation of the SR Scheme. Further Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA have not taken into consideration that the Developer clearly lacked the necessary NOCs from various Departments including the land owning authority i.e. the MCGM.

9.6. It is submitted that Respondent No.10 – AGRC has correctly observed that Developer’s proposal for development of Final Plot 27 of 68 No.187 is contrary to planning requirement as it is not possible to have an independent SR Scheme being implemented for the occupants / slum dwellers affected by road widening and situated on the proposed D.P. Road area of 535.[5] square meters and hence the object of the said Act would stand defeated.

9.7. It is submitted that the case of the Developer is malafide in facts as he has submitted the original SR Scheme for Final Plot No.187 admeasuring 4442.95 square meters only and proceeded on that footing. That the Developer has since inception admittedly excluded the proposed D.P. Road occupants / slum dwellers. That it is only by way of an administrative order, the D.P. Road occupants / slum dwellers are directed to be included in the S.R. Scheme. Hence, exclusion of the occupants / slum dwellers of the D.P. Road area from the original SR scheme continues till today, hence proceeding with the SR Scheme in its entirety is bad in law. That the Developer has subverted the original Scheme and played a fraud on the statute by applying for a smaller area and excluding the DP Road area and thus deliberately tampering with the requirement of 51% consent from all eligible slum dwellers of the entire area. It is submitted that the Developer has in collusion with SRA Officials conspired to fraudulently approve the SR Scheme for the entire area without following the prescribed regime under Circular No.144. 28 of 68

9.8. In addition, Mr. Chinoy, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the facts of a case and in that regard he would rely on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Pioneer India Developers Private Limited Vs. Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors. 6.

9.9. Mr. Kumbhakoni, in addition to the above would submit that this is a classic case of conflict between law and equity and in the given facts and circumstance, law has to prevail as non-compliance with the regime of Circular No.144 is fatal to the implementation of the SR Scheme on the entire plot, when the DP Road plot was admittedly excluded from the original Scheme which was submitted and sanctioned by the SRA. Hence he would submit that equity claimed by the Developer cannot be countenanced in these facts. In support of his aforesaid submission, he has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Limited 7 and more particularly paragraph No.15 of the decision to contend that even if equity in the present case may favour the Developer, law will prevail and the SR Scheme will have to be set aside on illegality. Paragraph No.15 of the above decision is reproduced herein under: 6 WP No.270 of 2019 decided on 04.08.2023

29 of 68 “15. In Rohitash Kumar [Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 11 SCC 451: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 368], this Court observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 459-60, paras 23- 26) “23. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigour. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. (Vide: CIT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal [CIT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, 1950 SCC 205]; and D.D. Joshi v. Union of India [D.D. Joshi v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCC 235:1983 SCC (L&S) 321] ).

24. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661] it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, “dura lex sed lex” which mean “the law is hard but it is the law” may be used to sum up the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation.

25. In Mysore SEB v. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. [Mysore SEB v. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1128], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta [Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529], this Court, while dealing with the same issue observed as under: (Martin Burn Ltd. case [Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529], AIR p. 535, para 14) ‘14. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the 30 of 68 result or not.’ (See also: CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 442: 1973 SCC (Tax) 282]; and Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd., (2009) 16 SCC 659] ).

26. Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the language used therein, is unequivocal.

15.1. In Mishri Lal [BSNL v. Mishri Lal, (2011) 14 SCC 739: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 387], it is observed that the law prevails over equity if there is a conflict. It is observed further that equity can only supplement the law and not supplant it.

15.2. In Raghunath Rai Bareja [Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230], in paras 30 to 37, this Court observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 242-43) “30. Thus, in Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633] (vide para 12) this Court observed: (AIR p. 1637) ‘12. … [W]hat is administered in Courts is justice according to law, and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law.’

31. In Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal [Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal, (2000) 7 SCC 521] (vide para 4) this Court observed: (SCC p. 522) ‘4. … Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law.’

32. Similarly, in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541: 2003 SCC (L&S) 339] (vide para 13) this Court observed: (SCC p. 546) ‘13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law.’

33. In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra [Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 5 SCC 413] (vide para 73) this Court observed: (SCC p. 436) ‘73. It is now well settled that when there is a conflict between law and equity the former shall prevail.’ 31 of 68

34. Similarly, in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal [Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577] (vide para 35) this Court observed: (SCC p. 588) ‘35. In a case where the statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, the court shall not interpret the same in a different manner, only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom.’

35. Similarly, in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy [E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123] (vide para 5) this Court observed: (SCC p. 127) ‘5. Equitable considerations have no place where the statute contained express provisions.’

36. In India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani [India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani, (2003) 9 SCC 393] (vide para 7) this Court held that: (SCC p. 398) ‘7. … The period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed or departed from for equitable considerations.’

37. In the present case, while equity is in favour of the respondent Bank, the law is in favour of the appellant, since we are of the opinion that the impugned order [Punjab National Bank v. Bareja Kripping Fasteners, 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 552] of the High Court is clearly in violation of Section 31 of the RDB Act, and moreover the claim is time-barred in view of Article 136 of the Limitation Act read with Section 24 of the RDB Act. We cannot but comment that it is the Bank itself which is to blame because after its first execution petition was dismissed on 23-8-1990 it should have immediately thereafter filed a second execution petition, but instead it filed the second execution petition only in 1994 which was dismissed on 18-8-1994. Thereafter, again the Bank waited for 5 years and it was only on 1-4-1999 (sic 11-1-

1999) that it filed its third execution petition. We fail to understand why the Bank waited from 1990 to 1994 and again from 1994 to 1999 in filing its execution petitions. Hence, it is the Bank which is responsible for not getting the decree executed well in time.” (emphasis in original) In the case before this Court, the claim made by the Bank was found to be time-barred and to that this Court observed that while the equity is in favour of the Bank, the law is not in favour of the borrower, however, since the claim is timebarred, as the execution petition was barred by the limitation, this Court set aside as such the execution petition.

15.3. In Popat Bahiru Govardhane [Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. LAO, (2013) 10 SCC 765: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 149], this 32 of 68 Court has observed and held that it is a settled legal position that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that the statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it by giving full effect to the same.”

9.10. In view of the above, it is submitted that the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.10 – AGRC is a well reasoned and correct order and does not call for any interference of this Court and deserves to be sustained.

10. Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General appears for the AGRC in Writ Petition No. 511 of 2023 and Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Advocate appears for the AGRC in Writ Petition No. 528 of 2023. Submissions made by both the learned Senior Advocates to defend the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by AGRC are almost identical. Hence for brevity, submissions advanced by both are stated together herein below:-

10.1. It is submitted that the action on the part of SRA to accept the fresh proposal of the Developer in respect of the larger area clearly amounts to a review of the decision dated 03.02.2021 of the Authority itself and is thus contrary to law. It is submitted that by making a fresh proposal for the larger area, the Developer has clearly circumvented the statutory regime of Circular No.144 which is impermissible. Hence, it is submitted that such an act on the part of the Developer to 33 of 68 submit a fresh proposal and acceptance of the same by SRA amounts to illegal improvement upon the said proposal and the SR Scheme sanctioned is impermissible in law. It is submitted that by doing so, consent of the slum dwellers on the DP road area stands completely excluded, which is an essential condition of the regime provided under Circular No. 144. It is submitted that the Developer had clear knowledge of the fact that he was not having the desired and requisite support of the slum dwellers of the entire property taken together and therefore in collusion with the Society (Respondent No.4) surreptitiously filed a fresh proposal by enhancing and improving upon the earlier proposal which was only in respect of Final Plot No.187. Both the learned Senior Advocates have drawn my attention to the decision in the case of Atesham Ahmed Khan (2nd supra) and more specifically paragraph No. 10 of the said decision which delineates and expressly states that SR scheme cannot be improved upon once submitted and in any event, the SR scheme should be supported by the consent of 51% of the occupants / slum dwellers. They would submit that by excluding the occupants / slum dwellers of the DP road area and continuation with the proposal submitted earlier in respect of Final Plot No. 187 only, the Developer and SRA have circumvented the statutory requirement of consent of eligible slum dwellers situated on the proposed DP Road area and this anomaly in the present case is neglected and ignored by the SRA. In support of this proposition, 34 of 68 reference is placed on paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid decision is reproduced below:- “10. The grievance, however, of the petitioners relates to the consequential directions that have been issued by the High Power Committee. The Committee has directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to obtain a report of the Competent Authority which was to verify draft Annexure-II submitted by the Architect of the first and second respondents. Now, in this regard it would be necessary to note that when a proposal is submitted by a proposed Co-operative Housing Society of slum dwellers the application is initially accepted and verified. The applicant is then required to pay the scrutiny fees upon which a scrutiny is conducted. Draft Annexure II containing a list of slum dwellers is thereafter forwarded by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the Competent Authority for verifying the names of eligible slum dwellers. In the case of public lands which are of the ownership of the State Government, the Additional Collector (Encroachment and Removal), who is the Competent Authority, has to verify draft Annexure-II containing names of slum dwellers who are eligible to participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and to certify it. At the stage when an application is submitted before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the application, as it stands, must indicate that the applicant fulfils the requirement of the requisite consent of 70% of the slum dwellers. The claim of the applicant is thereupon subject to scrutiny. But before the question of scrutiny arises, the application must on its face indicate that it fulfils the requirement of 70% consents. Hence, we find merit in the contention which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners in these proceedings that an application which on its face does not fulfil the requirement of DCR 33(10), must be rejected. The applicant cannot be allowed to progressively make up a deficiency in an application which does not ex facie fulfil the conditions on the date when it is submitted. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Awdesh Tiwari, the submission of an application operates to exclude all other Societies from having their applications received and processed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in respect of the scheme. Since the effect of the acceptance of the first application is to exclude from scrutiny all other applications until the scrutiny of the first application is complete, it is the bounden duty of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete in all respects and does not suffer from any deficiency. Any other construction would lead to the undesirable result that an application which is otherwise deficient and incomplete can progressively be improved upon over a prolonged period of time leading to a delay in the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Moreover, the mere submission of an application, however deficient, will 35 of 68 operate to block ail other applicants. This could not possibly be the intent underlying DCR 33(10). Again it must be emphasized that the underlying logic of the judgment of the Division Bench in Awdesh Tiwari (supra) is to exclude the possibility of undesirable competition by unscrupulous elements resorting to extraneous means in the implementation of slum schemes. Hence the first applicant must act bona fide and in compliance with law by submitting an application which fulfils the requirements of a valid application. The application must fulfil the essential requirements of a valid application on the date on which it is submitted.”

10.2. In view of the above, both learned Senior Advocates would submit that the aspect of improvement of the SR Scheme has been scrutinized and considered by the AGRC in its well reasoned order dated 28.07.2022 and therefore the same deserves to be upheld. It is submitted that proposal submitted by the Developer is a revised proposal, contrary to the planning requirement and is patently illegal and therefore has been rightly set aside by the AGRC. It is submitted that by improving upon the original proposal / SR scheme submitted only in respect of Final Plot No.187 (pt.) admeasuring a lesser area, the SR Scheme being implemented is contrary to law and excludes the consent of all eligible slum dwellers situated on the DP road area as also compliance of Circular No.144 pertaining to assessment of the financial capacity of the Developer to include additional number of slum dwellers from the D.P. Road area into the SR scheme. Mr. Khambatta in particular has drawn my attention to paragraph No.14 on page No.489 of Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 as also the findings returned on page No.500 and would emphasis that in the meeting held 36 of 68 on 08.02.2021, revised proposal by the Petitioner Developer was vehemently objected to by the private Respondents for not adhering to the statutory regime of Circular No.144, however despite that the revision in area was allowed. It is submitted that there was a deliberate and malafide intention on the part of the Developer to initially submit a proposal for the entire area since he was conscious about the opposition to his appointment as Developer by the slum dwellers / occupants of the DP road area and only to circumvent the issue of obtaining consent of all eligible slum dwellers, the original proposal submitted by Petitioner was only in respect of Final Plot No.187. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocates that the facts and circumstances in the present case amount to the Developer admittedly improving the SR scheme without adhering to the steps prescribed under Circular No. 144 and the Developer now claiming to have consent of 51% members cannot be accepted as a ground to accept him as Developer nor he can plead equity in his favour. Dr. Saraf in particular would submit that the regime of Circular No.144 requires obtaining of consent of all slum dwellers and it is illegal to suggest that consent can be gathered later on or even subsequently new areas can be added to the original proposal. He would submit that the NOCs which have been granted by the SRA on the fresh proposal submitted by the Developer are merely on the basis of the earlier NOCs. He would submit that for adding the additional 37 of 68 area of the proposed D.P. Road to the existing SR scheme as also more eligible slum dwellers requires consideration of their consent as also to assess the financial capacity of the Developer which is absent in the present case. In that view of the matter, the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the AGRC setting aside the appointment of the Petitioner as Developer cannot be faulted with and the Developer cannot plead any equity in his favour.

11. In rejoinder, Mr. Kadam on behalf of Petitioner in Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 would submit that the crucial feature required to be taken into cognizance in the present case is the fact that the entire larger land, comprising of Final Plot No.187, which is the subject matter of the SR Scheme of Respondent No. 4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS and the adjacent proposed DP Road, both belong to the ownership of the MCGM. He has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 3A read with 3C and 3D of the said Act and would contend that under these provisions, SRA has very wide powers for achieving the objects of the said Act. He has drawn my attention to the order dated 11.04.2022 at page No.255 passed by the MCGM clarifying the terms and conditions for development against the Petitioner. The said order is relevant and shall be adverted to later and is reproduced verbatim:- 38 of 68 39 of 68 40 of 68 41 of 68 42 of 68 43 of 68 44 of 68

12. Next, he has drawn my attention to page No. 258 of the Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 to point out that the Petitioner - Developer and Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS have accepted the conditions put forth by the MCGM for development. From the above, it is seen that the principal condition imposed for development of the 45 of 68 SR Scheme on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) will have to include all eligible slum dwellers from Final Plot No. 187 (pt.) alongwith the eligible slum dwellers form the adjacent proposed D.P. Road area. He would submit that it is in this very context that the SR scheme is now proposed for the larger area ad-measuring 4973.40 square meters from the original 4442.95 square meters. In this context, he has drawn my attention to the stand adopted by SRA in paragraph No. 10 of its Affidavit-in-reply at page No. 531 of Writ Petition No. 511 of 2023 to support the Petitioner and contend that SRA has supported the Developer all throughout and has issued the IOA dated 10.05.2022 which is appended at page No. 298 of Petition.

13. I have heard Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the Developer; Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS; Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Chinoy, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.[5] to 9; Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General for Respondent No.10 – AGRC in Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 alongwith Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.10 – AGRC in Writ Petition No.528 of 2023 and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.[1] to 3 – SRA and with their able assistance perused the record and pleadings of the present case. Submissions made by the learned Advocate General, learned Senior Advocates and learned Advocates have received due consideration of the Court. 46 of 68

14. In the present case, it is seen that there are two plots of land. The larger area Final Plot No.187 (pt.) admeasures 4442.95 square meters or thereabout whereas the smaller area admeasures 523.55 square meters. The smaller area is adjoining and adjacent to Final Plot No.187 and is part of the proposed D.P. Road in the Development Plan which directly affects the larger area. Both plots / areas belong to the ownership of the MCGM. It is seen that in 2018 i.e. SR Scheme was originally submitted by Respondent No. 4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS in conjunction with Patilwadi and Ismail Chawl Societies from both plots / areas seeking appointment of Sugma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. as Developer. Though this proposal was in consonance with Circular 144, after two years, the said Developer withdrew. Thereafter it seen that there was no consensus which resultantly led to Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS passing a Resolution first forming Shree Gurukrupa Housing Society of members having their structures on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) (4442.95 sq. mtrs.) and then passing Resolution to appoint Petitioner as Developer. This Resolution was passed on 29.11.2020 and with consent of 51% members of Respondent No. 4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS. Development Agreement and Power of Attorney was executed by the Society on 30.11.2020. This proposal under Circular No.144 was complete in all aspects and compliances. It received statutory NOCs from the five departments of SRA followed by Report for acceptance of the proposal by SRA. LOI 47 of 68 scrutiny fee was paid by the Developer and draft Annexure II was submitted for verification to the MCGM and public notice was issued for survey and finalization of Annexure II.

15. Record clearly indicates that it is at this stage that seven occupants of the smaller area / plot namely the 523.55 square meters i.e. the DP Road area filed a complaint objecting to the above proposal and scheme. It is pertinent to note that this complaint was filed on 07.01.2021 by seven occupants in view of the progress of the scheme and Application No. 169 of 2021 was filed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 in October 2021. It is seen that in view of complaint filed by these occupants on 07.01.2021, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 issued letter dated 03.02.2021 whereby proposal of the Developer and Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS was recorded as illegal and bad in law. This letter is at page No. 123 of the Writ Petition No.511 of 2023. It is crucial and critical to realize as to why this letter was issued by the SRA. This letter was issued because the proposal of the Developer was now confined to Final Plot No.187 (pt.) i.e. the area admeasuring 4442.95 square meters only, leaving out the structure on the smaller area admeasuring 523.55 square meters. It is pertinent to note that Final Plot No. 187 comprises of both these areas. The smaller area was part of the proposed D.P. Road which is to be cleared up of the structures / slum dwellers for benefit of redevelopment. Hence if any development is proposed to be carried out on the larger area (4442.95 48 of 68 square meters), it necessarily has to include development of the smaller area (523.55 square meters) also. This is so because admittedly, prima facie, the smaller area cannot be developed on its own and assuming for the sake of argument that it has to be developed, then such development can never take place for the smaller area. Hence inclusion of the smaller area, rather inclusion of the slum structures standing on the smaller area into the development scheme of the larger area is inevitable in the present case. Keeping this in mind, SRA while recording the Developer’s proposal as illegal and bad in law held that he could challenge or he could revoke it or he could submit a fresh proposal. This is the sum and substance of the communication dated 03.02.2021 issued by SRA. It needs to be noted and reiterated that proposal submitted by Developer in respect of the area as noted above had already undergone the steps contemplated by Circular No.144 and was at the stage of finalization of Annexure II when the aforementioned complaint dated 07.01.2021 was made by the seven occupants, resultantly leading to issuance of communication dated 03.02.2021 by SRA. In the above background, whether it can be said that there is fault in issuing the above communication is the question to be determined by this Court to answer the issues raised in the present Petitions. It could have been understood if SRA would have summarily rejected the Complaint dated 07.01.2021 but that is not the case here. However, in the interest of development of the 49 of 68 entire Final Plot No.187 including the area reserved for the D.P. road, the communication dated 03.02.2021 was issued. It is in this context that the Developer after deliberating with SRA submitted a fresh proposal on 18.02.2021. What is pertinent to note is that at this stage despite proceeding ahead, Respondent No. 4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS agreed to accommodate the slum dwellers residing on the adjacent D.P. Road area in their plot into their proposed SR scheme as PAPs. In the meeting before the SRA, it was contemplated that 17 out of the 47 slum dwellers had already given their consent to the proposed SR scheme of the Petitioner - Developer. However, their eligibility was yet to be decided. In that meeting the Petitioner agreed to accommodate the slum dwellers on the adjacent D.P. Road area as PAP tenements. It is in this context that application was made by the Petitioner on 18.02.2021 submitting a fresh proposal with the express consent of the Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS to accommodate the eligible slum dwellers from the D.P. Road area. The next crucial letter is dated 25.02.2021 which is the Administrative Decision taken by SRA for acceptance of this proposal. That decision is at Exhibit “D”, page No.138 of the Writ Petition. The extract of acceptance of the proposal by virtue of the administrative decision taken as appearing therein is reproduced below:- “13. Compliance of Circular No. 144 B: As per SRA Circular No. 144B, Architect has submitted the 50 of 68 co-ordinates for GIS system in the form of CD as per survey carried out by surveyor appointed by Developers. Architect has submitted the SR Scheme boundary in the GIS format as per Pg. C/149. As per letter issued by this department under No. SRA/Eng/Desk-1/ow-476 dated 03.02.2021 the subject SR Scheme is recorded on 03.02.2021. Thereafter meeting held along with Developer, Architect, Slum dwellers in the chamber of Hon’ble CEO (SRA) on 08.02.2021, in which it is decided that structures which are situated on widening of existing Dayaldas Road, are contravening structures and should be taken in the scheme as PAP. To that effect Developer has accepted the request of Slum dwellers to consider them in the scheme as PAP tenements, further developer has also submitted undertaking to that effect mentioning therein that, out of 47 PAP he has obtained 17 no. of tenements Agreement (Attach at pg. C-195 to C-465) and he is ready to pay there rents or he will provide transit accommodation. PAP tenants Annexure – II will be certified by Assistant Municipal Commissioner K/E ward.”

16. It is seen that the aforesaid proposal being in compliance with Circular 144-B was accepted by SRA and thereafter further steps were taken. It is in view of this acceptance, order dated 23.08.2021 came to be passed by SRA declaring the total area now admeasuring 4973.40 square meters as the slum rehabilitation area in respect of land bearing Final Plot No.187 (both plots included). It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.9 herein i.e. Abhyank SRA CHS (Prop.) as a Society of slum dwellers on the adjacent D.P. Road area strongly opposed this action on the ground that formally they were members of the erstwhile Gurukrupa SRA CHS (Prop.) at the time of submission of the original proposal by Sugma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. It was Respondent No.9 - Abhyank SRA CHS (Prop.)’s case that they had independently appointed M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. 51 of 68 Ltd. as its Developer and therefore sought rejection of Petitioner's proposal. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that proposal submitted by Sugma Construction originally was withdrawn after 2 years by the said Developer owing to unavoidable circumstances. It is further submitted that immediately thereafter the Respondent No.4 - Gurukrupa SRA CHS realigned itself and formed a new Society called Shree Gurukrupa SRA CHS (Prop.) of slum dwellers on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) admeasuring 4442.95 square meters and appointed Petitioner as Developer. It is clearly seen that in order to implement the proposal i.e. SR Scheme of Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS, a condition precedent was put by SRA to include all structures of slum dwellers on the smaller area i.e. the D.P. Road area so that the D.P. Road can be opened up and made available. It is in this context, that the Administrative Decision dated 25.02.2021 came to be implemented by a declaration that the area admeasuring 4973.40 square meters would be the slum rehabilitation area. There is no substance in the Respondent No.9’s objection since admittedly the smaller area cannot be developed on its own and its inclusion in development now precludes if from raising any objections. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the meanwhile Draft Annexure II was published on 19.01.2021. Final Annexure II was published on 15.05.2021 which included the eligible slum dwellers from the D.P. Road area and Final Annexure II was published by the MCGM on 52 of 68 01.09.2021 which included names of all eligible slum dwellers of Respondent No.9 - Abhyank SRA CHS (Prop) Society. It is only after this, that in October 2021, Application No. 169/2021 was filed by Respondent Nos. to 5 to 9 in the nature of a statutory Appeal under Section 35(1)-A before the AGRC to challenge the decision of acceptance of the SR scheme of the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS. In effect, this was a challenge by Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 to a SR Scheme which is for their own resurrection, benefit and development. Grounds of this challenge are crucial and it needs to be seen whether those grounds can even be countenanced in the facts of the present case which are alluded to herein above. It is seen that the Petitioner – Developer in the meanwhile proceeded with the SR Scheme of Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS by payment of land premium of Rs. 36,93,375/-. Fresh LOI was issued on 04.05.2022 with a specific pre-condition that rehabilitation of all slum dwellers from the proposed adjacent D.P. Road area was to be included in the SR Scheme if it was to be developed and not otherwise. IOA was issued on 10.05.2022 for the rehab building comprises of 189 tenements and 6 amenity units. SR Scheme progressed in the meanwhile. In May 2022, 72 eligible members of Respondent No. 4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS accepted transit rent and vacated their structures. Thereafter 52 structures are demolished by the Petitioner - Developer for progression of the SR 53 of 68 scheme and as on the date of final arguments of the Writ Petitions, 83 members of Respondent No. 4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS have received transit rent. It is pertinent to note that it is only after the above events, an application for condonation of delay in filing Application No. 169 of 2021 by the contesting Respondents is allowed and delay is condoned.

17. From the aforesaid events it is clear that balance of convenience needs to be adjudicated, but before that the figures of eligible slum dwellers involved in the present case also need to be looked into. According to the Petitioner - Developer, it is seen that the number of eligible slum dwellers on Respondent No. 4 - Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS on the plot ad-measuring 4442.95 square meters is 101 and the total number of slum dwellers on the proposed D.P. Road area i.e. the smaller plot is 47. According to the Petitioner - Developer, in any event it has procured the consent of more than 51% members in the SR scheme even if it decides to include the slum dwellers from the adjacent proposed D.P. road area. In this context, Affidavit-in-reply dated 26.08.2022 filed by SRA is crucial. The Affidavit supports the Petitioner’s case and clarifies one thing namely that the case of the Developer has been dealt with by SRA in strict compliance of all formalities contemplated by Circular No.144 and under the said Act. 54 of 68

18. In the present case, it is seen that the only ground of objection raised by Respondent Nos.[5] to 8 is with respect to noninclusion of the area of the adjacent proposed D.P. Road area in the SR Scheme submitted by the Developer. Prima facie, it is seen that 17 non-consenting slum dwellers having their structures are already part of the SR Scheme. Respondent No.6 is already included as an eligible slum dweller. Respondent Nos.[5] and 7 are excluded since they are ineligible whereas Respondent No.8’s structure is on the adjacent D.P. Road area. It is seen that the contesting Respondents are the noncooperative / dissenting members. It is seen that Respondent Nos.[5] to 8 infact have no locus whatsoever to challenge the proposal and the SR Scheme due to the following reasons:-

18.1. The structures of Respondent Nos.[6] and 8 admittedly are on the adjacent proposed DP Road area whereas structures of Respondent Nos.[5] and 7 are situated on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) on which the SR Scheme is implemented. Respondent Nos.[5] and 7 are dissenting members. It is seen that Respondent Nos.[5] and 7 are not included in the Annexure II prepared by the Competent Authority and are at present ineligible. In the future, they may be found to be eligible and their names may be included in the supplementary Annexure II subject to they being declared eligible. In so far as Respondent Nos.[6] and 8 are concerned, they are admittedly having their slum structures on the adjacent D.P. Road area and are categorized as eligible PAPs in the 55 of 68 Annexure II prepared for the D.P. Road. It is claimed by Respondent Nos.[5] and 8 that they have formed Respondent No.9 - proposed Society. However, in view of the specific pre-condition put by SRA on the Developer as well as on Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS to rehabilitate all eligible occupants on the adjacent proposed D.P. Road area as PAPs in their SR Scheme, Respondents on the D.P. Road have no locus whatsoever to challenge the SR Scheme since they are themselves beneficiaries of the SR Scheme. It is seen that during the aforementioned turn of events especially after passing of order dated 03.02.2021 on the complaint filed by the 7 occupants, a letter dated 07.02.2021 was addressed by M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to SRA claiming to have been appointed as Developer. The question that therefore is required to be answered is “What right and authority do Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 have in appointing M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as the new Developer?” The answer to the question is “No Authority, whatsoever”.

18.2. As seen above, rights of the aforementioned 4 dissenting Respondents are itself different; two of them are situated on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) whereas the other two are PAPs. Those who are on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) are presently ineligible. One member of each of the two groups claims to have formed Respondent No.9 – proposed Society. They do not have any locus whatsoever and their claim is nothing but extortionist and cannot be countenanced. 56 of 68

18.3. From the above, it is clear that these answering Respondents have been put up as proxy by an interested Developer namely M/s. Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

18.4. Next, it is seen that the order dated 11.04.2022 issued by the MCGM permitting implementation of SR Scheme on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) for the entire area admeasuring 4973.[4] square meters clearly records that the SR Scheme can never be independently developed on its own for the adjacent D.P. Road area and therefore it would be impossible to rehabilitate the eligible slum dwellers from that area in future and the objective of the said Act would stand completely defeated. Hence the adjacent DP Road area has to be developed alongwith the area of the Final Plot No.187 (pt.) admeasuring 4442.95 square meters. The said order is at Exhibit “AB” - page No.255 of the Writ Petition. The decision of the Corporation after due deliberation clearly records that the primary concern should be to improve all structures on Final Plot No.187 including those from the DP Road area Infact, the permission granted by the MCGM lays down the mandatory condition that has to be complied by the Developer first for further permissions to be granted for the SR Scheme. It is further pertinent to note that in the said order a very important reason has been ascribed by the MCGM, it is stated that if the entire area is redeveloped and if all slum dwellers are rehabilitated then the DP Road will be free of hutment dwellers who shall stand rehabilitated and the said road 57 of 68 which proceeds towards T-2 Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport will become free of hutments and shall completely eradicate the traffic congestion. This particular reason is one of the most important circumstance for consideration so that once the DP Road is freed of hutments and structures, it can be made open for vehicular traffic, free of congestion. It is in this context, that the said order has been passed permitting implementation of the SR Scheme of the area admeasuring 4973.40 square meters after rehabilitating all occupants / slum dwellers. In this very context, it would be appropriate to look at the Report of the Executive Engineer, SRA so as to ensure whether this pre-condition has been met with and how. It is seen that whatever has been discussed herein above finds its place as a condition precedent and there is no suppression of facts whatsoever. The issue of rehabilitation of tolerated and protected structures falling on the D.P. Road area adjacent to Final Plot No.187(pt.) has been extensively dealt with the specific pre-condition that the contravening structures on the D.P. Road area shall have to be accommodated as PAP tenements in the SR Scheme, subject to their eligibility. In this context, whether can it be said that there is any suppression of the area by the Developer or Respondent No.4. The answer is a clear “No”. Infact, the SR Scheme of Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS can only be implemented if the aforementioned pre-condition is met with by the Developer. The 58 of 68 Report records the issue of consent of more than 51% of eligible slum dwellers as per Draft Annexure certified by the MCGM. Hence, in this view of the matter, the finding returned by the AGRC in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 is clearly unsustainable and needs to be interfered with.

18.5. The inclusion of structures on the D.P. Road area as PAPs in the SR Scheme is admittedly in public interest since independently the DP Road area having slum structures cannot be developed on its own. Infact, that development is impossible in law and this is the real answer to the various questions and objections raised by the answering Respondents in the present Petitions. It needs to be reiterated that inclusion of slum structures on the DP Road area in the SR Scheme on Final Plot No.187(pt.) is not as the behest of the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa CHS but at the behest of the SRA in view of the above reasons. Therefore, objections raised by contesting Respondents that order declaring the plot admeasuring 4442.95 as slum rehabilitation area or order permitting implementation of the SR Scheme on the above area after considering all occupants / eligible slum dwellers cannot amount to review of the acceptance of the proposal for redevelopment and rehabilitation of the SR Scheme on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) admeasuring 4442.95 square meters as stated in the proposal filed by the Developer. There cannot be any illegality committed by Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS nor the 59 of 68 Petitioner - Developer in the present case. This is a clear case where a rival Developer desires to displace the Petitioner - Developer by adducing a completely frivolous and illegal case of not adhering to the prescribed steps in Circular No.144 for achieving its ulterior motive of taking over the SR Scheme much after the same has already been implemented. In this context, it would be appropriate refer to paragraph No.5 of the Affidavit-in-reply dated 26.08.2022 filed by the SRA. The said paragraph No.5 needs to be reproduced here and i[5] reads thus:-

18.6. On reading the above, it is clear that the proposal filed by the Petitioner - Developer is the fresh proposal and it cannot be deemed to be a ‘review’ of the earlier proposal as alleged by the contesting Respondents. Findings returned in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order that the fresh proposal is a review of the old proposal filed by the Developer is therefore clearly incorrect. Submissions made by Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 that if the structures on the DP Road are included in the SR Scheme, the proportion of contesting members will be altered is infact fallacious on the face of record. 60 of 68

18.7. It is argued by the contesting Respondents that Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa SRA CHS approached SRA for approval of its SR Scheme for a reduced area in view of not having consent of the majority. This is not the correct argument. I have also dealt with the number of slum dwellers on both the plots in this judgment on the basis of Respondent’s pleadings. Hence, the pre-condition laid down by SRA for inclusion of all eligible slum structures from the D.P. Road area in the SR Scheme implemented by the Developer on Final Plot No.187(pt) admeasuring 4442.95 square meters was to accommodate them as PAPs and therefore in that context their consents would even otherwise not be required. This is so because on its own, the D.P. Road area cannot be developed. Simultaneously it cannot be allowed to remain as it is also. Hence a practical solution was necessitated. However, even assuming for the sake of argument that eligible slum dwellers from the D.P. Road area have to be included and considered for obtaining their consent, still Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS has clear consents of more than 51% of all eligible slum dwellers taken together. Hence, repeated submissions and arguments of the contesting Respondents that consents would dip below 51% is stated to be rejected.

18.8. There is one more submission made by the contesting Respondents that the Developer has circumvented the provisions of law and derived undue benefits to itself. It is submitted by Mr. Chinoy 61 of 68 that even as on date, the D.P. Road area admeasuring 523.55 square meters is still excluded from the SR Scheme and the Developer has played fraud on the Statute and subverted the SR scheme. The aforementioned observations and findings referring to the orders dated 03.02.2021, 25.02.2021, 23.08.2021, 11.04.2022 and all steps taken in consonance with these orders are clearly in the public domain and it can never be construed that fraud has been played by the Petitioner - Developer by commission or omission of any particular act. Merely stating that a fraud is played cannot be a ground to believe that fraud has been played. In the present case, it is clear that a precondition has been put forth by the SRA to the Petitioner - Developer with open eyes and when this condition was put, the consent of Respondent No.4 – Society was also taken.

18.9. In this view of the matter, a pre-condition has been openly mandated for implementation of the SR scheme and by the said precondition, if the SR Scheme has to progress then all eligible slum dwellers from the adjacent D.P. Road area would have to be included. In this scenario, there can be no element of fraud played by the Petitioner - Developer to subvert the SR Scheme.

19. In my considered view, submissions advanced by the contesting Respondents cannot be accepted as having merit. In the present case, the SRA Authorities have acted in accordance with law 62 of 68 and approved the SR Scheme which will benefit all slum dwellers. In the course of arguments, it has been informed to me that the number of eligible slum dwellers of Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS situated on Final Plot No.187 (pt.) ad-measuring 4442.95 square meters and as seen through the NOC issued by the Assistant Registrar, SRA is 101 slum dwellers. This is appended at Exhibit “D” page No.79 of the Writ Petition. The number of slum dwellers on the adjacent DP Road on the area ad-measuring 523.55 square meters is 47 slum dwellers and these details are appended at Exhibit “T” page No.138 of the Writ Petition. It is seen that originally, the erstwhile Developer – Sugma Constructions had given a composite proposal for 164 slum dwellers on both plots situated on the Final Plot No.187. This is as per contesting Respondent’s own Affidavit and document appended thereto as Exhibit “A” which is at page No.435 of the Petition. If the above figures are taken into account, then assuming for the sake of arguments that originally there were 164 slum dwellers as contemplated, only 16 members of Respondent No.9 remained to be accounted for. If the aforesaid figures are therefore seen in totality, even for the purpose of consent for redevelopment, the figure of 101 slum dwellers of Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS would account for 63% slum dwellers to have given their consent. Hence, assuming that even if the remaining slum dwellers from the adjacent D.P. Road do not give their consent, even then the total 63 of 68 number of slum dwellers having given their consent will be 54%. Hence even on this account, the case of the contesting Respondents fails miserably.

20. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate has given a list of 45 members after completion of his submissions. These 45 members are slum dwellers on the adjacent D.P. Road area according to him. Prima facie reading the list of these 45 slum dwellers shows that atleast 30 members out of these belong to the same family namely husband, wife, siblings and parents. Such a situation and position clearly smacks of malafides on the face of record. For example, one Katkar family is shown to own 3 structures on the D.P. road in the names of Ganpat Krishna Katkar, Atmaram Krishna Katkar and Umesh Atmaram Katkar. Similarly, one Ubale family is shown to own 3 structures in the names of Rajendra Vasant Ubale, Shridhar Anant Ubale and Shashikant Anant Ubale. There are atleast 22 slum dwellers who are family members and own 2 structures each namely Sanjay Balaram Patil & Sumati Balaram Patil; Jayram Vishram Betkar & Eknath Jayram Betkar; Savitri Sitalaprasad Dhuriya & Urmila Babulnath Dhuriya; Dipak Chhotubhai Patel & Balwant Chhotubhai Patel; Sanjay Shankar Rewale & Dwaraka Vasant Rewale; Kalu Ismail Shaikh & Shabana Kalu Shaikh; Nita Jain & Pradeep Jain etc. Undoubtedly, the eligibility of these slum dwellers will be decided, if they are so eligible in law but the figures given by the contesting 64 of 68 Respondents cannot be accepted at face value. It is clearly derivated that the contesting Respondents’ agenda to oppose the Petitioner – Developer is at the behest of a rival Developer. The agenda is motivated. This would lead to further delay in implementation of the slum scheme. A minuscule minority is attempting to hold the entire redevelopment project to ransome in the present case.

21. Reliance of the contesting Respondents on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer India Developers Private Limited (6th supra) that in a Writ Petition, Court should not dwell into facts and examine the same in the event if fraud is committed has no application whatsoever to the facts of the case. Infact, there is no element of fraud found in the present case. It is clear that for the purpose of achieving the noble objective of the provisions of the said Act very wide powers are given to the SRA under Section 3A of the said Act. SRA not only has the power, but it is duty bound to get the SR Scheme implemented and do all such other acts and things as may be necessary for achieving the objectives of rehabilitation of slums. These objectives are implemented at the ground level in the present case.

22. In the present case, it is seen that if the SR Scheme applied for by Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS would have been implemented, then the hutment dwellers on the D.P. Road area would have languished and remained there forever and there is a 65 of 68 categorical finding returned by the MCGM in its order dated 11.02.2022 that the said DP Road area on its own could never have been redeveloped in the future. Therefore, it is seen that in one sense the Petitioner - Developer and Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS have conferred a favour on the hutment dwellers on the DP Road area by including them in their SR Scheme. SRA has wholeheartedly backed and approved the aforesaid SR Scheme keeping in mind one and only one objective that is rehabilitation of all slum dwellers including those on the D.P. Road area and the larger public interest in opening / clearing the D.P. Road and this would achieve dual purpose namely rehabilitation of the slum dwellers and most importantly rid the DP Road from the obstruction from slums and ease traffic congestion on the said road.

23. In the present case, it is seen that some dissenting members of the Respondent No.9 – Abhyank (SRA) CHS (proposed) rather only two members are the perpetrators of the complaint. I have dealt with their status herein above. It is clearly obvious that these dissenting members alongwith other members from the DP Road area have been fighting a proxy battle with the Petitioner - Developer and Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS in the present case which has caused undue delay and prejudice. 66 of 68

24. I am therefore of the clear opinion that the attempt by Respondent Nos.[5] to 9 is merely to scuttle redevelopment of the project and SR Scheme for their own ulterior motives and benefit. These contesting Respondents have no locus whatsoever to even object the development. Their actions are clearly motivated and not in the interest of the slum dwellers. As seen above, equity is clearly in favour of the Petitioner - Developer and Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS though it is argued vehemently by the learned Advocate General as also Mr. Khambata, both representing the AGRC separately that consent of slum dwellers cannot be gathered later on. However this argument cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The objective of the said Act is the sine qua non of all redevelopment and the rehabilitation project works.

25. Though it is argued that financial capacity of the Petitioner - Developer needs to be reconsidered afresh if additional area is added, in the facts of the present case, considering that the pre-condition has been put by the SRA to the SR Scheme of Petitioner - Developer and Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS, the aforementioned submission of the contesting Respondents cannot be countenanced. The present case cannot be construed as a case of new areas being added for the purpose of survey of hutments and consents, rather the addition of slum dwellers rather eligible slum dwellers from the D.P. Road area as PAPs is directed to be included in the SR Scheme of 67 of 68 Respondent No.4 – Shree Gurukrupa (SRA) CHS as a precondition for the reasons discussed herein above. That apart, majority consent as seen is even in otherwise favour of the Petitioner - Developer.

26. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the AGRC certainly needs to be interfered with and it is quashed and set aside. Both the Writ Petitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’.

27. Considering the amendment to the said Act during the pendency of the present Petitions the question of law framed by this Court vide Order dated 11.08.2022 is now rendered infructuous.

28. With the above directions, Writ Petition No.511 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.528 of 2023 stand allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

29. After the judgment is pronounced in Court, Mr. Balsara, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 would submit that the order of status quo granted by this Court on 11.08.2022 be continued for three weeks from today to enable the concerned Respondents to approach the superior Court. This submission of Mr. Balsara is opposed by Mr. Nalawade as well as Mr. Surana, learned Advocates for Petitioners. However, in view of the findings returned by me, I do not consider it fit to continue the status quo order and hence the submission made by Mr. Balsara for continuation of stay is rejected. Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 68 of 68 TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE