Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a proposed housing society of over 100 slum dwellers and their chosen developer, challenged the decision of the Secretary (Housing) dated 21st April 2005. The Secretary directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to consider the proposal of Respondent No.3, a developer appointed by Respondent No.5, another proposed cooperative housing society, for developing the same slum land in Andheri/Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. The land belonged to the Municipal Corporation. The court noted that neither the petitioner society nor the respondent society or their builders had any rights in the land; their status was limited to what was granted under the relevant statutes. Under the slum rehabilitation scheme, 70% of slum dwellers could apply for development, but the application of a proposed society was to be examined by the SRA. Only if that application was rejected could another group's proposal be entertained. The court referred to a Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.2746 of 2005 decided on 26th April 2006, which explained this position. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Secretary's direction was valid as the petitioner's proposal had not been rejected and the competing proposal could be considered.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Proposed Society's Right - No Vested Right - Under the slum rehabilitation scheme, a proposed society of slum dwellers has no vested right to develop the slum property; its application is to be examined by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, and if rejected, only then can another group's proposal be entertained. (Paras 3-4)
B) Slum Rehabilitation - Competing Proposals - Secretary's Power - The Secretary (Housing) can direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider a competing proposal if the earlier proposal is not viable or rejected. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Secretary (Housing) could direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider the proposal of Respondent No.3 when the petitioner's proposal was pending?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The Secretary's direction to consider the proposal of Respondent No.3 is upheld.
Law Points
- Slum rehabilitation scheme
- proposed society's right to develop
- consideration of competing proposals
- Secretary's power to direct consideration of another proposal
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 74
Writ Petition No. 5068 of 2005
H.L. Gokhale, J.H. Bhatia
Mr.H.S. Anand with Mr.Vaibhav Sugdare for the Petitioners, Mr.G.D. Utangale for Respondent No.1, Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents No.2, 6 and 7, Mr.A.Y. Sakhare with Mr.D.S. Sakhalkar for Respondent No.3, Mr.S.G. Surana for Respondent No.5, Mr.A.R. Mishra for interveners to oppose the petition
Shri Sai Bhagwati Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed) & Anr.
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the decision of the Secretary (Housing) directing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider a competing developer's proposal for slum development.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the Secretary's decision dated 21st April 2005 and to direct the SRA to consider their proposal.
Filing Reason
The Secretary directed the SRA to consider the proposal of Respondent No.3, which the petitioners claimed was in violation of their rights as a proposed society of slum dwellers.
Previous Decisions
The Secretary (Housing) passed an order on 21st April 2005 directing the SRA to consider the proposal of Respondent No.3.
Issues
Whether the Secretary (Housing) could direct the SRA to consider the proposal of Respondent No.3 when the petitioner's proposal was pending?
Whether the petitioner had a vested right to develop the slum property?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their proposal was pending and the Secretary could not direct consideration of another proposal.
Respondents argued that the petitioner had no vested right and the Secretary's direction was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the slum rehabilitation scheme, a proposed society has no vested right to develop a slum property. The application of a proposed society is to be examined by the SRA, and if rejected, only then can another group's proposal be entertained. The Secretary can direct consideration of a competing proposal if the earlier proposal is not viable or rejected.
Judgment Excerpts
Neither the 1st Petitioner society nor the 5th Respondent society or their respective builders have any rights whatsoever in this parcel of land.
Under the Scheme, the relevant Act and the Rules for slum rehabilitation as explained by this Court, the application of a proposed society is to be examined by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on receiving it and if the application of one proposed society is rejected, then only the proposal of another group can be entertained.
Procedural History
The petition was filed in 2005 challenging the Secretary's order dated 21st April 2005. The court heard the matter and dismissed it on 30th June 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971:
