Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a co-operative housing society and its president challenging an order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee dated 11.07.2022. The challenged order set aside an earlier order of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated 11.04.2022, which had de-clubbed the petitioner society's slum rehabilitation scheme from an amalgamated scheme and granted liberty to appoint a new developer. The AGRC order reinstated the original developer and issued directions for implementation of the scheme. The petitioner society owned a plot at Khar, Mumbai, situated in CRZ Zone II with FSI 1.0 at the relevant time, which made redevelopment unfeasible. After two earlier development agreements failed, the society entered into a development agreement dated 03.02.2010 with respondent no.6 developer for joint development with respondent nos.4 and 5 societies at Oshiwara. On 29.07.2010, SRA issued LOI for amalgamated scheme comprising 323 rehab tenements and other tenements. LOI required NOC from land owning authority MHADA within one month as per DCR 33(10). SRA sought NOC from Collector on 05.08.2010, but Collector refused on 06.09.2010 and later reiterated refusal. The society sent termination notice on 18.08.2012, but developer cited arbitration clause. In May 2017, respondent nos.4 and 5 filed applications under Section 13(2) of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act for termination of developer. In 2019, CRZ rules were eased. On 11.04.2022, SRA de-clubbed petitioner society's scheme, granted liberty to appoint new developer, and directed reimbursement. Developer appealed to AGRC; High Court directed AGRC to hear appeal; AGRC on 11.07.2022 set aside SRA order and reinstated developer. Hence writ petition. The core legal question was whether AGRC order was valid given alleged non-compliance with mandatory NOC condition and other grounds. Petitioners argued that developer did not take concrete steps and MHADA never issued NOC, breaching mandatory LOI condition. Developer had earlier replied that scheme was under progress and grievance should be arbitrated. The extracted text primarily sets out factual background without recording the court's analysis or final decision. The judgment ends at paragraph 3.26 mid-sentence, so the final holding and reasoning are not available. Therefore, the final decision and ratio decidendi cannot be stated from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 Constitution of India - Challenge to AGRC Order - Petitioner society filed writ petition under Article 226 challenging AGRC order dated 11.07.2022 which set aside SRA's de-clubbing order and reinstated developer - The court noted factual background of amalgamated slum rehabilitation scheme, LOI conditions, and alleged non-compliance with NOC requirement - No final holding stated in extracted text (Paras 1-3.26).
B) Slum Rehabilitation - Amalgamation and NOC - Development Control Regulations, 1991, Clause 33(10); Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, Section 13(2) - LOI Condition Requiring NOC from Land Owning Authority - LOI dated 29.07.2010 required respondent No.6 to submit NOC from MHADA within one month as per DCR 33(10) - MHADA/Collector refused NOC on multiple occasions, and petitioners alleged breach of mandatory condition - Court noted these facts but no final determination provided (Paras 3.7, 3.12-3.13, 3.16).
C) Slum Rehabilitation - Termination and De-clubbing - Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, Section 13(2) - Applications for Termination and De-clubbing of Schemes - Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed Section 13(2) applications for termination; SRA order dated 11.04.2022 de-clubbed petitioner society's scheme and granted liberty to appoint new developer; AGRC set aside that order - Court's final adjudication not present in extracted text (Paras 3.17-3.25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee order dated 11.07.2022 reinstating Respondent No.6 as Developer and setting aside SRA's de-clubbing order is legally valid and liable to be quashed.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
- Letter of Intent conditions
- No Objection Certificate from land owning authority
- DCR 33(10)
- amalgamation of schemes
- termination of developer under Section 13(2) Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
- AGRC appellate power
- de-clubbing of schemes
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 109
Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2022
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Yashesh Kamdar and Ms. Riddhi Wagle i/by Vishal Shriyan for Petitioners; Mr. Abhijit Patil a/w. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.1 AGRC; Mr. Sandesh Patil a/w. Mr. Prithviraj Gole for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 SRA; Mr. Rahul Raut a/w. Ms. Aishwarya Dangle for Respondent Nos.4 and 5; Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shanay Shah, Ms. Shradha Achliya and Ms. Neha Achliya i/by Sapna Rachure for Respondent No.6; Mr. Laxmikant Satelkar, AGP for Respondent No.7 State
New Hanuman Nagar SRA Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr.
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 11.07.2022 passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee reinstating Respondent No.6 Developer for Petitioner No.1 Society's Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of AGRC order dated 11.07.2022 and restoration of SRA order dated 11.04.2022 de-clubbing their scheme and granting liberty to appoint new developer.
Filing Reason
AGRC set aside SRA order dated 11.04.2022 and issued directions for LOI, permissions, OC etc., which petitioners alleged was illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory LOI conditions and breach by developer.
Previous Decisions
SRA order dated 11.04.2022 directed de-clubbing of Petitioner No.1 Society's SR Scheme from amalgamated scheme, granted liberty to appoint new developer, and directed reimbursement of expenses to Respondent No.6. AGRC order dated 11.07.2022 set aside that order and reinstated Respondent No.6 as developer. Earlier, Competent Authority order dated 08.03.2019 referred case to SRA for consideration of clubbing authenticity.
Issues
Whether AGRC order dated 11.07.2022 is legally valid and should be quashed
Whether Respondent No.6 Developer breached mandatory LOI condition regarding NOC from MHADA
Whether de-clubbing of Petitioner No.1 Society's SR Scheme was permissible
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Respondent No.6 Developer did not take concrete steps to implement amalgamated SR Scheme and was in breach of obligations; specifically MHADA did not issue NOC, breaching essential/mandatory LOI condition.
Respondent No.6 replied to termination notice dated 18.08.2012 stating amalgamated scheme was under progress and any grievance should be resolved through arbitration under Development Agreement.
Judgment Excerpts
By consent, the present Writ Petition is heard finally.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 - AGRC.
It is broadly argued on behalf of Petitioners that pursuant to LOI, Respondent No.6 – Developer did not take any concrete steps to implement the amalgamated SR Scheme and is in breach of his obligations.
MHADA did not issue NOC to the Developer and therefore there is a breach of an essential / mandatory condition of the LOI committed by Respondent No.6 in continuing with the development.
By order dated 11.04.2022, Respondent No.3 directed Petitioner No.1 – Society’s SR Scheme to be de-clubbed from the amalgamated SR Scheme with Respondent Nos.4 and 5 – Societies and granted liberty to Petitioner No.1 - Society to appoint new Developer.
By order dated 11.07.2022, AGRC set aside the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.3 terminating appointment of Respondent No.6 – Developer qua Petitioner No.1 - Society and, inter alia, issued further substantial directions thus allowing the Appeal.
Procedural History
Petitioner society entered into development agreement with Patel Engineering Ltd. on 01.09.1999, terminated on 01.09.2002. Second agreement with Ace Housing and Construction Ltd. also terminated. Development agreement with Respondent No.6 dated 03.02.2010 for joint development with Respondent Nos.4 and 5. SRA issued LOI on 29.07.2010. SRA sought NOC from Collector on 05.08.2010; Collector refused on 06.09.2010 and reiterated refusal in subsequent letters. Society sent termination notice on 18.08.2012; developer cited arbitration. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed Section 13(2) applications in May 2017; Respondent No.5 withdrew on 25.07.2018; Respondent No.4 withdrew on 08.04.2021. Competent Authority order dated 08.03.2019 referred case to SRA. SRA order dated 11.04.2022 de-clubbed petitioner society's scheme and granted liberty to appoint new developer. Developer appealed to AGRC; High Court in Writ Petition (L) No.14453 of 2022 directed AGRC to hear appeal. AGRC order dated 11.07.2022 set aside SRA order and reinstated developer. Present writ petition filed challenging AGRC order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: Section 13(2)
- Development Control Regulations, 1991: Clause 33(10)
