Supreme Court: In a civil appeal against Bombay High Court’s decision, whereby, the appellant- Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti’s petition for quashing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority Maharashtra’s (SRA) order, wherein, the allotment of the rehabilitated towers of the slum was not in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) signed between the developer and the appellant society, was dismissed. The Division Bench of Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia*, JJ. dismissed the appellant society’s appeal and directed the SRA to carry out the allotment of flats in accordance with law and not in terms of the MoU, being a private agreement.
Background
SRA had proposed a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The project was for construction of a total built up area of 75854.716 sq. m., where 1765 slum dwellers were to be rehabilitated. Some of the allotments were stalled due to the present dispute and the ongoing litigation between various stake holders of the project. A section of slum dwellers had got together and framed a society called ‘Shramik Ekta Co-Operative Housing Federation’ (‘Federation’) and appointed Lokhandwala Kataria Constructions as its Developer, which was subsequently approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) by issuing a Letter of Intent (LoI) on 16-04-2005.
The work of the nine towers in question was stalled due to the interference of the appellant society. The appellant society was registered as a public trust on 21-11-2009 by some of the slum dwellers. A MoU was signed between the developer and the appellant whereby, it was undertaken that the appellant undertook will enforce self-development rehabilitation with the cooperation of the developer.
Pursuant to the MoU between the developer and the appellants, the appellants approached SRA to do the allotment of the towers as per the terms of settlement.
Ultimately the SRA, vide order dated 21–09–2020 allotted 712 flats on the basis of lottery, but then vide order dated 25-09-2020, the SRA stayed this order. This order dated 25–09–2020 was challenged by the appellant society before the High Court, wherein, the SRA was directed to take a call on allotments of the flats in Tower D, E & F, by way of lottery. The SRA in compliance with the said order passed an order on 26–10–2020 deciding to allot the flats, as per the procedure presribed. However, the appellant society again challenged the SRA’s allotment on grounds that the allotment shall only be as per the terms of the MoU. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court, forming the impugned Order.
The appellant society’s case was that once the Developer and the appellant society had come to a settlement in terms of the MoU, the allotment of flats ought to have been made accordingly, only to the members of appellant society.
Decision
“Slums of Mumbai are symbolic of the existing inequalities in our society. The growth of industries and urban centres invariably result in migration of rural population to urban industrial areas, in search of employment. The migrants, displaced poor and the marginalised are forced by circumstances to form a living space for themselves, which are called slums.”
Regarding the MoU, the Court said that it was entirely private arrangement arrived at between the Developer on the one hand and some of the hutment dwellers on the other, the SRA had no role to play in it, rather it is an arrangement at the back of SRA and is in defiance of an already existing rehabilitation scheme, statutorily sanctioned, which was surviving at the time of the allotment.
Regarding the procedure for allotment, which is the core of the dispute, the Court referred to the Development Control Regulations (‘DCR’) under which the present rehabilitation of slum was to be undertaken was Regulation 33(10) wherein it was provided that ‘hutments dwellers in category having a differently abled person or female headed households shall be given first preference in allotment of tenements. Thereafter lots shall be drawn for allotment of tenements from the remaining tenements to the other eligible hutment–dwellers before grant of O.C. to rehab Building.’ Therefore, the Court said that the allotment by draw of lots was not an arbitrary order of the SRA but this is the settled procedure, long continuing and in terms of the law.
Further, the Court said that the High Court, had rightly observed that the consent terms are in the nature of a private agreement and it had little to favour the appellant society’s case. The Court also said that the Civil Suit was at the behest of the Developer against individual society members and the SRA was not a party to these proceedings. Therefore, the Court said that this seemingly ingenious, yet unfair and even specious method adopted by the Developer in league with the Appellant society to bypass the statutory procedure must be deprecated.
Referring to Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 118, the Court stated that “private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of the SRA.”
The Court also said that under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the SRA is the final authority for implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme. Referring to Usha Dhondiram Khairnar v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 11505, the Court said that the SRA must act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based.
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order. The Court directed the SRA to carry out the allotment of flats in accordance with law.
[Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1684, Decided on: 15-12-2023]
Judgment Authored by: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
