Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Shiv Sai (SRA) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., challenged an order dated 4 October 2023 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). The AGRC had set aside the order dated 14 September 2021 of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), which had terminated the appointment of M/s. Raviraj Construction (Respondent No.4) as developer under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). The CEO had also granted liberty to the Society to appoint a new developer. The AGRC remanded the matter to the CEO for fresh hearing. The Society, desiring to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme through Respondent No.5, was aggrieved by the AGRC's decision. The facts reveal that in 1997, the State Government declared the subject plot as a slum area under Section 4 of the Slum Act. Respondent No.4, a proprietary concern of Mr. Krishna Salvi, obtained consent from 67 hutment dwellers who formed the Petitioner-Society. On 8 February 1998, a Development Agreement was executed between the Society and Respondent No.4. Subsequently, disputes arose, and the Society sought termination of Respondent No.4. The CEO allowed the termination application under Section 13(2). The AGRC, on appeal by Respondent No.4, set aside the CEO's order and remanded the matter. The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the AGRC and held that the AGRC exceeded its powers by interfering with the CEO's order without proper grounds. The Court noted that the Society had validly terminated the developer and was entitled to appoint a new developer of its choice. The Court set aside the AGRC's order and restored the CEO's order dated 14 September 2021, allowing the Society to proceed with Respondent No.5 as the new developer.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Termination of Developer - Section 13(2) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - The CEO/SRA has power to terminate a developer under Section 13(2) upon application by the society. The AGRC, while exercising appellate/revisional powers, cannot set aside such order without proper jurisdiction. Held that the AGRC exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter without considering the society's right to choose its developer (Paras 1-10). B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee - The AGRC's powers are limited to grievances under the Slum Act; it cannot interfere with the CEO's order under Section 13(2) unless there is a clear error. The remand order was set aside as the AGRC failed to appreciate the society's consent for termination. Held that the CEO's order was valid and the society is entitled to appoint a new developer (Paras 11-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) had jurisdiction to set aside the CEO/SRA's order terminating the developer under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and whether the AGRC's remand order was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the AGRC order dated 4 October 2023, and restored the CEO's order dated 14 September 2021 terminating Respondent No.4 as developer and granting liberty to the Society to appoint a new developer.
Law Points
- Section 13(2) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement
- Clearance and Redevelopment) Act
- 1971
- Apex Grievance Redressal Committee jurisdiction
- termination of developer
- slum rehabilitation scheme
- cooperative housing society rights
