Summary
The Supreme Court upheld allotment of rehabilitation tenements through the statutory lottery procedure. A private settlement reserving particular towers for members of a minority slum society could not bind the Slum Rehabilitation Authority or override the development regulations and allotment policy.
Issues
- Whether a private settlement and consent decree could require exclusive allotment of specified rehabilitation towers contrary to the statutory allotment procedure.
Provisions considered
- Section 42, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971The Court held that the developer’s civil suit concerned matters entrusted to statutory authorities and was barred. The compromise reached without the SRA could not displace the statutory scheme. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Regulation 33(10), Appendix IV, clause 1.8, Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991The prescribed preferences and draw of lots governed allotment. The letter of intent and SRA Circular 162 also required the lottery procedure; a private tower reservation could not override it. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22, 25)
Held
- The private memorandum and consent decree between the developer and the minority society did not bind the SRA, which was not a party. Correspondence did not establish lawful approval of a departure from the prescribed allotment procedure; even an assurance contrary to law could not support that departure. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22)
- Slum rehabilitation carries a public purpose and is governed by statutory regulations. The prescribed priority for differently abled persons and female-headed households, followed by allotment by lots, could not be displaced by reserving towers for the appellant society. The validity of Circular 162 was not challenged. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 25)
- The SRA is responsible for fair implementation of the rehabilitation scheme and cannot permit a developer or society to dictate allotment contrary to its governing rules and policies. The developer’s conduct called for an explanation and appropriate action by the SRA in accordance with law. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
Result
Appeal dismissed and the High Court judgment upheld. The Supreme Court’s status quo order was vacated. The SRA was directed to proceed with allotment in accordance with law and seek the developer’s explanation for appropriate action. Pending applications disposed of.