Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gemini Developers, a sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Ramesh Malhotra (predecessor of the present petitioner represented by Mr. Deep Malhotra), is the owner and developer of a private property bearing CTS Nos. 88, 89, 90 of Village Kolekalyan, Santacruz (East), Mumbai, which was declared a slum under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The property has 172 eligible slum dwellers entitled to rehabilitation. In 2003, the petitioner was appointed as developer by Respondent No.6 Society. Between 2006 and 2016, all eligible slum dwellers were either accommodated in transit accommodation on the property or accepted transit rent and moved out. Some non-cooperative slum dwellers filed proceedings before the Competent Authority which were disposed. In 2015, Writ Petition (L) No.2387 of 2015 was filed by Respondent No.6. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) in Appeal No.09 of 2015, which directed the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the land cost as per the annual schedule of rates on account of change in developer and in consonance with SRA office order dated 23.03.2015. The court, by consent of all parties, took up the hearing finally as the redevelopment project was stalled. The court outlined the relevant facts and proceeded to adjudicate the lis.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Challenge to AGRC Order - The petitioner sought partial challenge to the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) directing payment of additional 5% land cost due to change in developer - The court examined the validity of the direction in light of SRA office order dated 23.03.2015 - Held that the matter requires consideration (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) was justified in directing the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the land cost as per the annual schedule of rates on account of change in developer and in consonance with Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) office order dated 23.03.2015.
Final Decision
The court took up the hearing finally by consent of parties and proceeded to adjudicate. The judgment is partially allowing the writ petition, but the full decision is not provided in the extracted text.
Law Points
- Change in developer
- Additional land cost
- Annual schedule of rates
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority office order
- Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
