Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a developer, challenged the termination of his appointment to implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR Scheme) on a property owned by MCGM and occupied by slum dwellers. The property was designated as R.R.2.1 (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) in the Development Plan. The slum dwellers formed a society, Millat-E-Society, and appointed the petitioner as developer in 2019. The petitioner filed a proposal with SRA in November 2019, and SRA issued an acceptance letter in April 2022. However, in September 2022, MCGM issued eviction notices under Section 89 of MRTP Act for implementation of a garden as per a 1960 Town Planning Scheme. The petitioner challenged these notices in court. Meanwhile, in December 2022, the society terminated the petitioner's appointment citing delay of four years and failure to protect against eviction. The CEO, SRA, terminated the petitioner's appointment on 2 August 2023, holding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and that the majority of slum dwellers had lost faith. The AGRC dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the CEO had power under Section 32 of the Slums Act to terminate the developer, and the termination was justified. The court noted that the petitioner's explanation of delay due to a 2002 court order was not raised before the SRA and was an afterthought. The court also found that the petitioner had ample opportunity to take steps before and after the Covid-19 lockdown but failed to do so. The termination was upheld.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Termination of Developer - Section 32 of Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - The CEO, SRA, has the power to terminate a developer's appointment for implementing a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme if the delay in implementation is attributable to the developer and the majority of slum dwellers have lost faith in the developer. The court upheld the termination, noting that the petitioner failed to obtain approvals for nearly four years and the explanation of delay due to a court order was not raised before the SRA and was an afterthought. (Paras 8, 11-12) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Delay in Implementation - Covid-19 Pandemic - The court considered the Covid-19 lockdown as a factor but found that the petitioner had ample opportunity before and after the lockdown to take steps, yet failed to do so. The delay was attributable to the petitioner, not to the SRA or MCGM. (Paras 7, 12) C) Slum Rehabilitation - Loss of Faith - Majority Decision - The termination was also based on the majority of slum dwellers losing faith in the developer, as evidenced by the society's resolution to terminate the petitioner and appoint a new developer. The court held that the SRA and AGRC correctly considered this ground. (Paras 6, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the CEO, SRA, had the power to terminate the petitioner's appointment as a developer for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, and whether the termination was justified on grounds of delay and loss of faith of slum dwellers.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The orders of CEO, SRA dated 2 August 2023 and AGRC dated 13 February 2024 are upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of developer by SRA under Section 32 of Maharashtra Slums Act is valid if delay is attributable to developer and majority of slum dwellers have lost faith
- SRA has power to terminate developer even in absence of specific violation of agreement
- Explanation of delay due to court order not raised before SRA is an afterthought
- Interim order in earlier writ petition did not bar sanction of scheme on land designated as R.R.2.1.
