Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Alphonso D'Souza and Vanessa D'Souza, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 5th January 2022 passed by the Apex Grievances Redressal Committee (AGRC) in Application No.141 of 2021. The AGRC had allowed the application filed by respondent No.3, M/s. Mass Jaks Associate Ventures, declaring that the petitioners were not entitled to two commercial premises each admeasuring 450 sq ft in the new building in lieu of two stilt car parking spaces in the old building. The petitioners contended that this order was contrary to the consent terms dated 9th May 2012 recorded in Suit No.1994 of 2008, which had been disposed of by the Bombay High Court. The consent terms, specifically paragraph 16, provided that the petitioners were entitled to two shops of 409 sq ft carpet area each with specified dimensions and frontage, along with other amenities. The respondent No.3 had stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff/developer and had issued an offer letter agreeing to abide by the consent terms. The petitioners argued that the AGRC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil dispute already settled by a court decree. The court heard arguments from all parties. The High Court held that the AGRC order was without jurisdiction and contrary to the binding consent terms. The court quashed the impugned order and directed respondent No.2 to sanction plans in conformity with the consent terms and the development agreement. The court also restrained respondent No.3 from creating third-party rights over the shop allotted to petitioner No.1. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - AGRC Jurisdiction - Consent Terms Binding - The AGRC exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating a civil dispute regarding entitlement to commercial premises based on consent terms recorded in a suit, which were binding on the successor developer. Held that the AGRC cannot decide matters already settled by a court decree (Paras 1-42). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Quasi-Judicial Orders - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the AGRC order as it was passed without jurisdiction and contrary to the consent terms. Held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside (Paras 1-42). C) Contract Law - Successor Developer - Privity of Contract - The respondent No.3, as successor developer, was bound by the consent terms dated 9th May 2012 and the development agreement dated 27th November 2020. Held that the petitioners' entitlement to two shops of 409 sq ft each was not extinguished (Paras 1-42).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievances Redressal Committee (AGRC) could adjudicate the entitlement of the petitioners to commercial premises in lieu of stilt car parking spaces, and whether the impugned order dated 5th January 2022 was valid.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th January 2022 passed by the Apex Grievances Redressal Committee in Application No.141 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to sanction plans in conformity with the consent terms dated 9th May 2012 and the Development Agreement dated 27th November 2020. Respondent No.3 is restrained from creating third party rights over the shop allotted to petitioner No.1. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Consent terms are binding on successor developer
- AGRC cannot adjudicate civil disputes
- writ of certiorari lies against quasi-judicial orders
- principles of natural justice
- interpretation of consent terms
