Summary
After decades of delay in rehabilitating slum dwellers who collectively owned the land, the Court upheld removal of Susme for delay and denied its rival developer relief because consent had been procured through false promises. Neither had seventy per cent support. Invoking Article 142, the Court directed a fresh authority-led selection with safeguards and a rehabilitation timetable.
Issues
- Whether the earlier consent-verification order entitled either developer to continue.
- Whether the slum authority could remove Susme and whether lack of consent was within the notice.
- What consent requirements and remedial directions applied on these unusual facts.
Provisions considered
- Sections 13(2) and 3A(3)(c)–(d), Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971In the peculiar owner-occupier arrangement and developer’s dual role, these powers supported removal for delay and cancellation of the letter of intent; the implementation duties also supplied authority. (¶ 42–52)
- Regulation 33(10), Appendix IV clauses 1.15–1.16, Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, as amended in 1997The applicable scheme required seventy per cent consent/individual agreements while preserving rehabilitation benefits for nonjoining eligible occupiers. (¶ 57–70)
Held
- The binding 2015 Article 142 order required verification of seventy per cent support among eligible dwellers as of that date, not merely a majority of those voting. Neither developer met it; the report was accepted and the merits therefore required decision. (¶ 34–41)
- Section 13(2) covered contravention of approved plans, relevant restrictions or conditions, and failure to develop within stipulated time, which could derive from the letter of intent, agreement or regulations. Removal was justified here for protracted unexplained delay. (¶¶ 44–52, 71–76)
- The notices alleged delay, not a separate failure to obtain seventy per cent consent. Cancellation on the unnotified ground exceeded their scope, although consent-related correspondence remained relevant to delay and subsequent entitlement to relief. (¶¶ 53–56, 70, 84(5)–(7))
- Consent once given should ordinarily not be withdrawn and competing votes between developers were disapproved; misrepresentation, however, vitiates consent. J.G. Developers’ unsupported promises of larger flats rendered its agreements unenforceable. This case’s exceptional verification procedure was not a precedent for others. (¶ 77–84)
- Article 142 directions required SRA to seek experienced developers through advertisements, assess capacity and terms, secure timely approvals and rehabilitation within two years of plan sanction, and obtain a Rs.200 crore bank guarantee. Owners’ additional benefits, monitoring, cooperation and disposal of pending litigation were addressed. (¶ 85–87)
Result
Both developers denied continuation. Fresh selection and implementation directed under Article 142; the adverse finding on the unnotified consent ground set aside while Susme’s removal for delay was upheld. SRA to report by 31 March 2018; matter listed for 9 April 2018.