A. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act) – S. 14(1) – Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) – Acquisition of land – Duty coupled with power.
Appellant developer had a sanctioned SRS covering the Subject Property (2,005 sq. mts.) – CEO-SRA passed a 2015 Order holding the scheme substantially implemented and directing acquisition of the Subject Property under S. 14(1) for rehabilitation and handing over RG plot to MCGM – Original owner (R-5) did not challenge 2015 Order – Held: The 2015 Order attained finality and created a duty on the SRA to proceed with the acquisition process.
B. Administrative Law – Power of Review – Successor Authority – Slum Act – Orders passed by CEO-SRA.
Successor CEO-SRA passed a 2022 Order refusing to implement the acquisition directed by the predecessor's 2015 Order, allowing a rival scheme by R-4 (new developer) – Held: Statutory authority's order, once final and unchallenged, cannot be reversed or reviewed by a successor authority without express statutory power, especially when third-party rights (of slum dwellers and the public interest of the RG plot) have accrued based on the original order – The 2022 Order constituted an illegal review and volte face contrary to the principle established in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 96.
C. Slum Act – S. 14(1) – Laches – Delay in enforcement of acquisition order.
High Court dismissed Appellant's petition citing seven-year delay (2015-2022) in enforcing the 2015 acquisition order – Held: While the developer showed laches, the statutory duty to acquire the land, imposed by the SRA's own final order for the public purpose of slum rehabilitation and securing RG, cannot be extinguished solely due to the developer's delay – The SRA had an independent obligation to execute the acquisition under S. 14(1) once the necessary representation was made in the 2015 Order.
D. Slum Act – Regulation 33(10) – Slum Scheme – Subsequent rival scheme on land already designated for rehabilitation/public purpose.
The Subject Property slum dwellers were included in the Appellant’s Annexure-II and allegedly rehabilitated – Rival scheme proposed by R-4 on the same plot after purchase from R-5 – Held: A subsequent scheme cannot be sanctioned on a plot whose slum dwellers have already been rehabilitated under a substantially completed and sanctioned SRS, particularly when the plot is reserved for a Recreational Ground (RG) and the prior scheme's FSI benefit was conditionally kept in abeyance pending acquisition.
E. Development Control Regulations (DCR) – DCR 1991/DCPR 2034 – RG Reservation – Public Interest.
The Subject Property is reserved as RG – Appellant's scheme committed to handing over 100% open RG to MCGM after acquisition – R-4’s rival scheme sought to utilize 65% for construction – Held: Public interest in preserving open RG land in Mumbai must be a paramount consideration – The SRA's decision to permit a rival scheme that reduces the open space commitment is unsustainable when a prior scheme was directed to acquire the land specifically to secure the RG reservation for MCGM.
Analysis
The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether the High Court correctly dismissed the Appellant's plea to:
Challenge the CEO-SRA's order dated 03.10.2022 and the AGRC's order dated 07.10.2024 (which allowed the rival scheme).
Direct the implementation of the CEO-SRA's earlier, unchallenged 2015 Order (dated 26.02.2015), which directed the acquisition of the Subject Property under Section 14 of the Slum Act for the Appellant's scheme.
Key Issues Before the Court
The entire appeal hinges on the following three interconnected legal and factual issues:
1. Status of the Subject Property: Inclusion or Exclusion?
Appellant's Claim (Jyoti Builders): The Subject Property was included in their scheme from the beginning, as evidenced by the 1997 LOI, the 2005 revised LOI, and the Annexure-II which lists 34 slum dwellers from this property as part of their rehabilitation list. The 2015 Order further confirmed its inclusion by directing its acquisition.
Respondents' Claim (SRA/Alchemi Developers): The property was excluded because the owner (Phuldai, Respondent No. 5) had terminated the MOU, and the Appellant's predecessor did not have clear title/consent. The High Court found that the FSI benefit for this plot was "kept in abeyance," suggesting a conditional inclusion at best, and the plot was not included in the scheme.
2. Finality and Implementability of the 2015 Order
2015 Order (CEO-SRA): Held that the Appellant's scheme was substantially implemented, and the Subject Property must be acquired under Section 14 of the Slum Act for the scheme's completion and to hand over the RG plot to MCGM. This order was unchallenged by the owner (Phuldai).
Appellant's Argument: The 2015 Order attained finality and created a duty for the SRA to acquire the land. The subsequent 2022 order by the current CEO-SRA, which refused to implement the acquisition, constitutes an illegal review of the predecessor's order without statutory power, and a volte face (change of stance) after Respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) purchased the property.
High Court/Respondents' Finding: The SRA failed to follow through with the Section 14 acquisition process for seven years (2015-2022). The High Court held that it was too late to assert this right and that the Appellant was attempting a "backdoor entry" to acquire the land.
3. Validity of the Rival Scheme (Alchemi Developers)
Appellant's Argument: No new scheme could have been sanctioned for the Subject Property because:
It's reserved for Recreational Ground (RG), and the previous ruling in Citispace restricted development.
The 34 slum dwellers on the plot were already rehabilitated by the Appellant (a fact the SRA allegedly recorded in one instance).
The rival scheme would result in an illegal reduction of the RG area (65% construction vs. 100% open RG under the Appellant's scheme).
High Court/Respondents' Finding: Since the owner's (Phuldai's) rights were not adjudicated and the land was not acquired, the owner had the right to sell, and the purchaser (Alchemi) was entitled to submit a scheme. The High Court noted that the restriction on developing RG land was changed after March 1, 2022.
Legal Context: Section 14 of the Slum Act
The crux of the Appellant's case rests on the implementation of Section 14(1) of the Slum Act (Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971).
"Where on any representation from the Competent Authority it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the Authority to execute any work of improvement or to redevelop any slum area... it is necessary that such area, or any land within adjoining or surrounded by any such area should be acquired the State Government may acquire the land..."
Proviso: Requires the owner to be called upon to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired, and the SRA's report and objections must be considered by the State Government before acquisition.
The 2015 Order was a "representation" by the CEO-SRA to the State Government (via the Dy. Collector, SRA) to initiate the Section 14 acquisition process.
The Appellant argues this "representation" coupled with the owner's lack of challenge for seven years created a statutory duty on the SRA/State to complete the acquisition.
The High Court emphasized that the State Government failed to take steps under the Proviso to Section 14(1) (calling upon the owner to show cause) despite the 2015 Order.
No comments:
Post a Comment