Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.(L) NO. 12949 OF 2024

M/s. Lashkaria Housing &

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. } ..Petitioner

: Versus :

1. Slum Rehabilitation Authority

2. Chief Executive Ofcer

3. Sarvodaya Residence SRA CHS

(Proposed)

4. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee} ..Respondent

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 15499 OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 12949 OF 2024

1. Salahuddin Akid Ansari

2. Mohd. Israeel Abdul Rahid Khan

3. Mohd. Asif Noor Mohd. Khan

4. Sabera Shahid Varsi } ..Applicant/ Intervenor

(Proposed Respondent)

In the matter between :

M/s. Lashkaria Housing &

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. } ..Petitioner

: Versus :

Page No. 1 of 26

10 May 2024 2024:BHC-OS:7931

::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

1. Slum Rehabilitation Authority

2. Chief Executive Ofcer

3. Sarvodaya Residence SRA CHS

(Proposed)

4. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee} ..Respondent

________________________________________________

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, with Mr. Santosh Pathak, Mr. Chirag Thakkar

and Mr. Kailash Pathak, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Cherag Balsara i/by. Mr. Milind Nar, for Respondent No.3.

Ms. Uroosa Shaikh i/by. Mr. Anup Patil for AGRC, Respondent No.4.

Mr. Amogh Singh with Ms. Priya Chaturvedi i/by. Mr. Nimish Lotlikar for

Applicant in IAL-15499 of 2024.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved On : 9 MAY 2024.

Pronounced On : 10 MAY 2024.

J U D G M E N T:

1) Petitioner-Developer has fled this petition challenging the

Order dated 8 April 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal

Committee (AGRC), rejecting Petitioner’s Application No. 228 of 2023

and upholding the Order dated 28 August 2023 passed by Chief

Executive Ofcer, SRA (CEO/SRA) terminating Petitioner’s

appointment as Developer under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum

Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum

Act).

Page No. 2 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

2) The petition concerns implementation of Slum

Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) in respect of Plot bearing Survey No. 41,

CTS No.1 (Pt.) of Village-Oshiwara, Taluka-Andheri, Anand Nagar,

Jogeshwari West, Mumbai- 400 012. It appears that one M/s. Hridaya

Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Hridaya) was appointed by the slum dwellers,

through their Society named Sarvodaya Residence SRA CHS

(Proposed), as Developer for implementation of SRS on the plot. It

appears, Society also adopted a Resolution in its General Body on 25

March 2018 resolving to cancel the appointment of Hridaya and to

appoint Petitioner as new Developer to implement the subject SRA.

Accordingly, on Society’s application, CEO/SRA initiated action for

termination of appointment of Hridaya under provisions of Section 13(2)

of the Slum Act and passed order dated 26 June 2018 terminating the

appointment of Hridya and granting liberty to Society to implement the

SRS through Petitioner as per provisions of prevailing law, rules and

regulations.

3) Petitioner was accordingly appointed as a developer for

implementation of subject SRS by letter dated 13 July 2021. Letter dated

1 August 2022 was submitted on the letterhead of Respondent No.3-

Society, which was signed by 31 plus 7 persons seeking termination of

appointment of Petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the

Slum Act inter-alia on the ground that despite its appointment in the

year 2018, Petitioner did not make any progress in the scheme.

Page No. 3 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

4) The CEO/SRA initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of

the Slum Act in which Petitioner was heard. However, it appears that

the Chief Promoter of Respondent No.3-Society submitted letter dated

6 July 2023 before CEO/SRA questioning the authority of persons to

address letter dated 1 August 2022 on Society’s letterhead and requested

for rejection of the application. CEO/SRA, after hearing parties, passed

order dated 28 August 2023 allowing the application and terminated the

appointment of Petitioner as Developer to implement the subject SRS.

The Joint Registrar/SRA has been directed to hold the General Body

meeting for appointment of Chief Promoter and other promoters of the

Society. The Society has been granted liberty to appoint new developer

of its choice.

5) Aggrieved by CEO/SRA’s order dated 28 August 2023,

Petitioner fled Application No. 228/2023 before AGRC. During

pendency of the application, AGRC stayed the order of CEO/SRA.

After hearing parties, AGRC has proceeded to dismiss Petitioner’s

application.

6) Petitioner has accordingly fled the present petition

challenging Orders passed by AGRC and CEO/SRA. By order dated 17

April 2024, this Court has continued the stay granted by AGRC.

7) I have heard Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner. He would question the locus of signatories

to the application dated 1 August 2022 to maintain an action seeking

Page No. 4 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

termination of appointment of Petitioner. He would submit that

Society’s Chief Promoter, alone can represent it, who did not seek

termination of Petitioner and infact sought dismissal of application fled

by unauthorised persons. Relying on judgment of Division Bench in

Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. Versus Slum Rehabilitation

Authority

1

, he would submit that slum dwellers in their individual

capacity cannot seek termination of developer under Section 13(2) of the

Slum Act.

8)He would submit that the CEO/SRA has erred in terminating the

appointment of Petitioner without appreciating the fact that there has

been no delay on the part of the Petitioner in implementing the subject

SRS. That Petitioner’s proposal came to be accepted by SRA on 13 July

2021. That the project involves rehabilitation of approximately 432

hutments divided over three parts of land. That the frst part of the land

belongs to MCGM, which has 210 structures and in respect of which

Annexure-II has been issued on 16 March 2005 declaring 138 slum

dwellers eligible and 72 ineligible. The second part of the land is owned

by MHADA, on which there are 120 structures and in Annexure-II

issued on 21 December 2005, 66 slum dwellers are held eligible and 54

ineligible. That the third portion of land is owned by MHADA, on

which there are 97 structures and that Annexure-II in respect of that

portion of the land is yet to be fnalised and is at draft stage. He would

invite my attention to public notice dated 25 February 2022 issued by

MHADA for conduct of bio-metric survey of slum structures on the

1

2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9201.

Page No. 5 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

third portion of the land. That it is for MHADA to fnalise Annexure-II

in respect of third part of land, in absence of which, Petitioner cannot fle

a proposal for issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI). He would rely upon

order passed by this Court in Adarsh SRA Sahakari Gruhanirman

Sanstha Ltd. and Anr. V/s. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

2

holding that developer cannot be held responsible in absence of pending

eligibility of slum dwellers. He would rely upon survey conducted at the

instance of District Superintendent of Land Records, SRA vide letter

dated 24 February 2023. He would invite my attention to Survey Map

indicating overlapping requiring further permissions/approvals from

Competent Authorities. That another Developer is unauthorisedly

constructing structure on the DP road, about which complaints are fled

by the Society. That Letter dated 23 February 2023 is challenged by

M/s. Sunil Constructions in this Court to prevent conduct of survey. He

would submit that if above circumstances are taken into consideration, it

cannot be contended that there is any delay on the part of the Petitioner

in implementing the subject SRS.

9) Mr. Khandeparkar would submit that the CEO/SRA has

not applied his mind objectively to the above circumstances and has

proceeded to allow application of unauthorised persons in a mechanical

manner. That AGRC has failed to correct the error committed by CEO/

SRA by not appreciating that non-fnalisation of Annexure-II in respect

of third portion of the land is not attributable to Petitioner in any

manner.

2

Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 11493 of 2023 decided on 4 December 2023.

Page No. 6 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

10) Respondent No.3-Society is apparently split into two parts

and Mr. Cherag Balsara as well as Mr. Amogh Singh claim right to

represent it. While Mr. Balsara opposes the petition, Mr. Singh supports

it.

11) Mr. Balsara would submit that the CEO/SRA has rightly

terminated the appointment of Petitioner, who has been simply sitting

over the scheme ever since his appointment by the Society. That instead

of proceeding ahead with implementation of slum scheme in respect of

second portion of land comprising 120 slum structures, Petitioner has

been deliberately delaying the same with a view to expand the ambit of

the scheme by incorporating the frst and third portions of the land in the

scheme. That Petitioner was allotted only second portion of land

comprising 120 slum structures and that in his quest to expand the slum

scheme, it has deliberately delayed issuance of LOI till all the problems

concerning frst and third portions of land are sorted out. That the slum

dwellers of frst and third portions of land do not desire implementation

of their schemes through Petitioner. That another developer named

M/s. Sunil Constructions is claiming rights in respect of frst portion of

land and has fled petition in this Court challenging actions of the

Petitioner for amalgamation of that land in the slum scheme of 120

structures. That the slum society on third portion of land comprising of

97 structures have complained to SRA about their opposition to include

the third portion of land in the slum scheme allotted to Petitioner. That

Petitioner has thus created complications in implementation of the slum

scheme allotted to it to satisfy its greed to implement the scheme in

Page No. 7 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

respect of larger portions of land. That though Hridaya was earlier

granted permission to develop 433 slum structures, the scheme allotted

to Petitioner is only in respect of second portion of land covering 120

slum structures. That the AGRC has rightly appreciated the fact that

Petitioner has neither secured consent of slum dwellers on adjoining

plots nor has made any progress towards implementation of SRS allotted

to him. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.

12) Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for rival part of

Respondent No.3-Society represented by Mr. Salahuddin Akeen Ansari

(Chief Promoter) and other co-promoters, would support the petition.

They have fled Interim Application (L) No. 15499/2024 to support the

petition on behalf of Respondent No.3-Society. Mr. Singh would submit

that implementation of the subject SRS involves all the three portions of

land comprising of 432 slum structures.

13) Mr. Aradwad (Reddy), the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos.1 and 2-SRA would oppose the petition and submit that

the factual position as captured in the order of the CEO/SRA would

undoubtedly indicate that the slum scheme allotted to Petitioner is only

in respect of 120 structures and not in respect of 432 structures, as

falsely claimed by Petitioner. Supporting the Order of CEO/SRA, he

would therefore pray for dismissal of the petition.

14) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my

consideration.

Page No. 8 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

15) It must be observed at the very outset that, the present

petition is full of confusion on multiple aspects. Firstly, there is a

confusion as to who can represent Respondent No.3-Society as both Mr.

Balsara as well as Mr. Singh claim right of representation on its behalf.

This is something which is not very uncommon in SRA societies where

rival groups of slum dwellers are often formed, who are usually backed

by rival developers. I am not surprised that in the present case also two

rival groups claim to represent the society. The second confusion, which

to my mind, goes to the root of the matter and clarifcation of which

provides an answer to the issue involved in the present petition, relates

to the exact land on which Petitioner was allotted SRS for

implementation. While answer to the frst confusion is useful for

deciding preliminary objection of Mr. Khandeparkar about locus to

maintain action under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, clarity about

second confusion leads to answer on merits of the petition.

16) Before proceeding to decide merits of the orders passed by

the CEO/SRA and AGRC, it would be necessary to frst deal with the

objection raised by Mr. Khandeparkar about locus of signatories to the

complaint dated 1 August 2022 to maintain an action for termination of

developer under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. No doubt, the law on the

subject is well settled that application for seeking termination of

developer under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act cannot be initiated by an

individual slum dweller. This obviously is the position because the

decision to choose the Developer is collectively taken by the society of

slum dwellers. Once the society collectively chooses a developer, whose

Page No. 9 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

proposal is accepted by SRA for implementation of SRS in question,

ordinarily only that collective body viz. Society can maintain an action

under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act for removal of the developer. Mr.

Khandeparkar’s reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in

Nirman Realtors (supra) in this regard is apposite. This Court held in

para-20, 21 and 24 of the judgment as under:

20. Undisputedly, the application under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act

was fled by the Respondent No. 3 in her individual capacity as a slum

dweller. It is well settled that an individual slum dweller or the

proposed society of the slum dwellers cannot seek removal of the

developer, who was appointed by the registered society after obtaining

consent of 70% of the slum dwellers. This being the case the

application under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act fled by an individual

slum dweller was not maintainable.

21. There is no dispute that a Developer who has been appointed by a

Cooperative Society is under obligation to fulfll the mandate of DCR

33(10). When the Developer develops the land in contravention of

plan or contravenes any restrictions or conditions or does not

implement the scheme within the time, Section 13(2) of the Slum Act

confers powers on the Competent Authority to remove the errant

Developers and replace by any other competent agency.

24. It is also to be noted that the High Power Committee has observed

that the Petitioner has failed to pay rent of transit accommodation to

the eligible slum dwellers. Non-payment of rent was one of the

grounds for removal of the Petitioner as a Developer. It is to be noted

that the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner in Section 13(2)

proceedings does not refer to removal on the ground of non-payment

of rent. The decision to remove the Petitioner as Developer on the

ground of non-payment of rent is beyond the allegations contained in

the show cause notice and is therefore breach of principles of natural

justice.

17) While it is well settled that application for termination of

developer cannot be fled by individual slum dwellers under Section

Page No. 10 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

13(2) of the Slum Act, it is equally true that initiation of action under

Section 13(2) does not need a trigger of an application by the society.

Infact, sub-section (2) of Section 13 is couched in such manner that, it

vests jurisdiction in the Competent Authority to withdraw a slum

scheme from owner or developer. All that is needed for passing an order

under Section 13(2) is ‘satisfaction’ of the Competent Authority.

Section 13 of the Slum Act provides thus:

13. Power of Competent Authority to redevelop clearance area

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section

12 the Competent Authority may, at any time after the land has been

cleared of buildings in accordance with a clearance order, but before

the work of redevelopment of that land has been commenced by the

owner, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its own cost, if

that Authority is satisfed that it is necessary in the public interest to

do so.

(2) Where land has been cleared of the buildings in accordance with a

clearance order, the Competent Authority, if it is satisfed that the

land has been, or is being, redeveloped by the owner thereof in

contravention of plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions

imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12, or has not been

redeveloped within the time, if any, specifed under such conditions,

may, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its own cost:

Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given

a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the order should not

be passed.

18) The scope of power of Competent Authority under Section

13(2) of the Slum Act has been explained by the Apex Court in Susme

Builders Private Limited Vs. Chief Executive Ofcer, Slum

Rehabilitation Authority

3

in which the Apex Court has held as under:

3

(2018) 2 SCC 230

Page No. 11 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

45. We cannot accept such a wide submission. According to us, under

Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, the SRA has the authority to take

action and hand over the development of land to some other

recognised agency under three circumstances:

(i) When there is contravention of the plans duly

approved;

(ii) When there is contravention of any restriction or

condition imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12 of the

Slum Act; and

(iii) When the development has not taken place within

time, if any, specifed.

46. The requirement to complete the development within time may be

there in the letter of intent issued by the SRA or may be in the

agreement entered into between the owner/developer with the slum-

dwellers. Such condition, if violated, would attract the provisions of

Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. Over and above that, when a clearance

order is passed, then in terms of sub-section (10) of Section 12, the

competent authority can include a condition with regard to the time

within which the development should be completed and, in that case,

also Section 13(2) would be attracted. We are not, however, able to

accept the very wide argument that in case of delay, the condition that

is violated must be laid down under Section 12(10) of the Slum Act.

47. There may be cases where the slum-dwellers do not ofer any

resistance and willingly consent to move into transit accommodation

provided by the owner/developer. Therefore, the conditions laid

down under Section 12(10) will come into play only when there is a

clearance order, but in case there is no clearance order, then under

Section 13(2), the SRA would be empowered to take action when

there is violation of any plan or when there is violation of any

condition relating to developing the project within time. The time-

limit can, some time, be provided in the letter of intent, in the

agreement or even in the regulations.

Whether the SRA has any other power to remove the developer

51. Even if we were to assume that the SRA did not enjoy this power

under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, we are of the considered view

that since it was the SRA which issued this letter of intent, it

necessarily must have the power to cancel the same. The SRA can

also derive this power under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of

Section 3-A of the Slum Act, which read as under:

Page No. 12 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

“3-A. Slum Rehabilitation Authority for implementing

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.—(1) Notwithstanding

anything contained in the foregoing provisions, the State

Government may, by notifcation in the Ofcial Gazette,

appoint an authority to be called the Slum Rehabilitation

Authority for such area or areas as may be specifed in the

notifcation; and diferent authorities may be appointed for

diferent areas.

***

(3) The powers, duties and functions of the Slum

Rehabilitation Authority shall be—

***

(c) to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme implemented;

(d) to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary

for achieving the objects of rehabilitation of slums.”

52. A bare reading of these provisions shows that in terms of clauses

(c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Slum Act, the SRA

not only has the power, but it is duty-bound to get the slum

rehabilitation scheme implemented and to do all such other acts and

things as will be necessary for achieving the object of rehabilitation of

slums. In this case, the SRA was faced with a situation where the

slum-dwellers were sufering for more than 25 years and, therefore the

action taken by SRA to remove Susme for the unjustifed delay was

totally justifed.

53. A perusal of the various provisions of the Slum Act would show

that normally in a case falling under the Slum Act, it is the owner of

the land, whether it be the Government, a statutory authority or a

private person, who will be interested in the development work.

Normally, the occupiers will be encroachers of slum land. Therefore,

there will be a confict of interest between the occupiers and the

owner. The owner, in turn, will always engage a developer/builder to

carry out the development work. In case the owner gives a power of

attorney to the developer, as in the present case, the developer now

has two identities — (i) the power-of-attorney holder of the owner,

and (ii) the developer. As far as the present case is concerned, the

Society is made up of the members who are occupiers and this Society

has given power of attorney to the developer Susme. Therefore, the

developer Susme is actually having a dual role of owner and developer.

Both the letters of intent have been issued in favour of the Society,

Susme and the architects of Susme. Susme could not have carried out

the development work on the basis of its agreement with the Society.

Page No. 13 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

It needed the permission of the SRA. Therefore, SRA can obviously

revoke such permission.

19) Thus, as held by the Apex Court in Susme Builders, for

efective implementation of SRS under Section 3A(3) of Slum Act, the

Competent Authority is vested with necessary jurisdiction to take such

steps as may be necessary in the facts of each case. Thus, the Competent

Authority can initiate suo-moto action for termination of developer under

Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. While Mr. Khandeparkar does not

dispute this position, he would submit that in the present case, the power

is not exercised suo-moto and is triggered by an application fled by

unauthorized persons. That CEO/SRA never thought it necessary on its

own to initiate suo-moto action and the action initiated on the basis of

unauthorised application cannot be subsequently justifed on the basis of

permissibility to initiate suo-moto action. I am unable to agree with the

submissions of Mr. Khandeparkar. As observed above, all that is needed

for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 13(2) is recording of

‘satisfaction’ by CEO/SRA about existence of eventualities enumerated

under the provision. Considering the objective behind conferring the

power under Section 13(2), coupled with vesting of power to take ‘all

necessary steps’ for efective implementation of SRS under Section

3A(3), I am of the view that order passed by CEO/SRA after recording

his ‘satisfaction’ cannot be rendered invalid only on account of the fact

that the initial trigger for the action was by person(s) not authorised to

maintain an application under Section 13(2). I am therefore not inclined

to interfere in the impugned order of the CEO/SRA on this count.

Page No. 14 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

20) Coming to the merits of the decisions of CEO/SRA and of

AGRC, Petitioner claims that its proposal for implementation of subject

SRS is accepted in respect of larger portion of land admeasuring

6,295.30 sq. mtrs comprising of 432 odd slum structures. In para-8 of the

petition, Petitioner has given following sub-division of the entire land on

which it believes it has right to implement the slum scheme:

8. The Competent Authority, being the MHADA on 21

st

December

2005 and MCGM on 16

th

March 2005, the land owners had forwarded

the Annexure II (list of eligible slum dwellers who would be entitled

for a permanent tenement under the re-development) in respect of the

very slum.

Sr.

Nos.

Date of

Issuance

Land

Owned by

Total Slum

Structure

EligibleNon-

Eligible

116

th

March

2005

MCGM 210 138 72

2 21

st

December

2005

MHADA 120 66 54

3 2022 Draft

Annexure II

issued by

MHADA

97

21) There is a debate amongst the parties about the exact land

and the exact number of slum structures in respect of which, the slum

scheme has been sanctioned. The above three portions of land are

indicated by Petitioner on ‘superimposed plan’ annexed at Exhibit-F to the

petition which is as under:

Page No. 15 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

22)According to the Petitioner, while the scheme is ready to be

implemented in the frst and second portion of the land on account of

certifcation of Annexure-II in respect of structures thereon in the year

2005, it is non-certifcation of Annexure-II by MHADA on the third

portion of land comprising of 97 structures (indicated in pink portion in

the map) , which is holding up further progress in the scheme. On the

contrary, it is Mr. Balsara’s contention that Petitioner has nothing to do

with frst and third portions of land and the scheme allotted to it is

restricted only in respect of second portion of land comprising of 120

structures.

Page No. 16 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

23) Petitioner’s claim of acceptance of proposal of all three

portions of land is premised on various documents such as the order

passed by CEO/SRA on 26 June 2018 terminating Hridaya’s

appointment and accepting its appointment, Note dated 14 October

2020 of District Superintendent of Land Records giving NOC in respect

of land admeasuring 6,295.33 sq.mtrs., refection of 433 slum structures

in report of Co-operative Department dated 17 January 2019, Resolution

adopted by Society on 25 March 2018 etc. I have minutely considered all

the documents on record and I must say that it is really unfortunate that

this Court is required to institute a microscopic enquiry to fnd out the

exact land in respect of which slum scheme has been handed over to the

Petitioner. Better clarity in this respect would have saved valuable

judicial time. However, since validity of orders passed by CEO/SRA and

AGRC hinge squarely on this debate, I am left with no other alternative

but to embark upon such enquiry.

24) It appears that Hridaya was allotted slum scheme in respect

of 432 slum structures which is clear from following observations made

by CEO/SRA in order dated 26 June 2018 :

Proposal for preparing Annexure-II was forwarded by MHADA

on 19/8/2005. Chief Ofcer, Mumbai Road, MHADA informed

SRA by its letter dated 21/12/2005 that 122 out of 432 slums

structures are on MHADA land and that therefore Annexure-II

will be issued for the same, whereas remaining slum structures

out of 432 are on MCGM land and therefore Annexure-II should

be obtained from MCGM for the same...”

Page No. 17 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

25)It thus appears that Hridaya was apparently allotted slum scheme

in respect of much larger portion comprising of 432 slum structures

which could possibly cover all the three portions of land described above.

Hridaya’s appointment was terminated by CEO/SRA by order dated 26

June 2018, which also refers to General Body Meeting of Society held on

25 March 2018 resolving to cancel appointment of Hridaya and

proposing to appoint Petitioner as Developer. It appears that Hridaya

had given NOC for appointment of Petitioner as developer as Hridaya

was unable to process the subject SRS due to its personal reasons. CEO/

SRA terminated appointment of Hridya and granted liberty to Society to

implement the SRS through their new developer as per the provisions of

prevailing law, rules and regulations. Para-2 of the operative portion of

the order of CEO/SRA dated 26 June 2018 reads thus:

2. The slum dwellers society viz. Sarvodaya Residence SRA

CHS is at liberty to implement the SR Scheme. Further through

their new developer M/s. Lashkaria Housing & Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. as per the provisions of prevailing law, rules and

regulations.’

26) Though it is sought to be contended by Mr. Khandeparkar

and Mr. Singh that the entire scheme got transferred from Hridaya to

Petitioner by Order dated 26 June 2018, I am unable to accept the said

contention. The CEO/SRA merely granted liberty to the Society to

implement SRS through Petitioner ‘as per provisions of prevailing law,

rules and regulations’. The actions initiated after passing of order dated 26

June 2018 makes this position clearer. After termination of Hridaya’s

appointment by order dated 26 June 2018, one Anand Nagar Sarvoday

Page No. 18 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

Residence SRA Co-operative Housing Society addressed letter dated

4 July 2018 to the Co-operative Department of SRA requesting

convening of General Body Meeting of the Society for appointment of

Developer. Accordingly, the Co-operative Department convened

meeting of General Body of the Society on 26 October 2018 by

nominating Assistant Registrar to oversee the same. Notices were

published in local newspapers for holding the meeting. Due to objection

raised by Respondent No.3-Society, the meeting convened at the

instance of Anand Nagar Sarvoday Residence SRA CHS was cancelled

and a fresh meeting was scheduled to be held on 31 October 2018 by

publishing notices in newspaper. In the meeting held on 31 October

2018, Subject No.1 was for appointment of developer, in which slum

dwellers were supposed to cast their votes in respect of two developers

viz. Petitioner and M/s. Sitara Realties Pvt. Ltd. The meeting was held

only in respect of 120 slum structures and only 66 slum dwellers who

were held eligible in Annexure-II certifed on 21 December 2005 were

permitted to vote. Thus, the meeting held on 31 October 2018 was only

in respect of 120 slum structures located on second portion of the land.

Out of the 66 eligible slum dwellers, 44 remained present for the meeting

and Petitioner secured 24 votes whereas M/s. Sitara Realtors received

20 votes. Accordingly, Petitioner was declared successful in the voting

process. The second subject was about appointment of Managing

Committee in which Mr. Ansari Salahuddin Akid was declared as Chief

Promoter of the society in addition to other promoters. Report of the

minutes of the Meeting was prepared by Co-operative Ofcer, SRA

Page No. 19 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

which was approved by Joint Registrar, Secretary SRA and fnally by

CEO/SRA.

27) Appointment of the Petitioner for implementation of the

slum scheme is processed on the basis of the above report of the Co-

operative Department as approved by CEO/SRA. It is thus apparently

clear that though Hridaya’s appointment was in respect of larger portion

of slum scheme comprising 432 slum structures, after liberty was

granted to the Society for appointment of new developer, appointment

of Petitioner is made only in respect of second portion of land

comprising of 120 slum structures.

28) Though Mr. Khandeparkar and Mr. Singh have sought to

rely upon Resolution adopted in General Body Meeting held on 25

March 2018, in my view, the said Resolution is meaningless as fresh

process was required to be implemented for appointment of developer

after Hridaya’s appointment was terminated. Appreciating this position,

Respondent No.3-Society held meeting on 31 October 2018 and adopted

Resolution for appointment of Petitioner after conducting voting by

secret ballot between two developers. Interestingly, the Chief Promoter

and other promoters to whom Mr. Singh represents and who support the

Petitioner not just participated in that meeting but their election as Chief

Promoter and Co-promoters is an outcome of Resolutions adopted in the

said meeting. Having passed a Resolution for appointment of Developer

to implement slum scheme for only 120 slum structures, it is highly

objectionable on the part of clients of Mr. Singh to turn around and

Page No. 20 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

contend that Petitioner is appointed for implementation of slum scheme

for 432 structures. The conduct of clients of Mr. Singh in taking a stand

contrary to the Resolutions adopted in the General Body Meeting held

on 31 October 2018 is deprecated. In fact, the entire confusion about the

land and the number of structures in respect of which Petitioner is

appointed got created on account of such irresponsible stand taken by

Petitioner and by clients of Mr. Singh leading to wastage of judicial time.

29) Petitioner’s reliance on File Note dated 14 October 2020 of

District Superintendent of Land Records-SRA does not cut any ice. True

it is that, the said authority has granted NOC from ownership point of

view for implementation of slum scheme in respect of land admeasuring

6,295.33 sq.mtrs. However, the said document does not and cannot be

read to mean as if acceptance of proposal of Petitioner by letter dated 13

July 2021 is in respect of the said portion of land or 432 slum structures.

When only 120 slum structures were considered for determining

majority for appointment of developer, the scheme cannot be for

rehabilitation of 432 slum structures. This is because the majority is

calculated only in respect of 66 eligible slum dwellers out of 120 slum

structures. If Petitioner contends that it is entitled to implement slum

scheme for 432 slum structures, its appointment would be rendered ab-

initio void. I am therefore of the view that Petitioner’s appointment is

only in respect of second portion of the land comprising 120 slum

structures.

Page No. 21 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

30) Once the clarity is achieved about the exact number of slum

structures for which Petitioner is appointed to implement the scheme,

appreciation of reasons recorded by CEO/SRA and AGRC for

termination of Petitioner’s appointment becomes easy. It is an admitted

position that Petitioner wants to implement slum scheme in respect of all

three portions of land. However, record indicates that there is not just

stif opposition for execution of SRS in respect of frst and third portions

of land through Petitioner, but Petitioner has also not been able to secure

necessary clearances/approvals in respect of frst and third portions of

land. M/s. Sunil Constructions apparently claims rights in respect of

frst portion of land comprising of 210 structures and is opposing

implementation of SRS by Petitioners. It has fled Writ Petition (St.) No.

9361 of 2023 in this Court challenging letter dated 24 February 2023 by

which District Superintendent of Land Records has directed conduct of

survey of overlap area of SRS of M/s. Sunil Constructions and SRS of

Petitioner for verifcation of actual number of slum structures. It

appears that another society named Hindu Muslim Ekta CHS

(Proposed) is formed in respect of frst portion of the land. Thus, Sunil

Constructions not just claims rights in respect of frst portion of the land

but is clearly opposed to amalgamation of the two SRS.

31) Similarly in respect of slum structures located in the third

portion of the land, another society is formed which is opposed to

Petitioner implementing SRS in respect of 97 slum structures located

thereon. The record thus clearly indicates that far from Petitioner

securing consent as well as approvals for integration/amalgamation of

Page No. 22 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

slum scheme relating to frst and third portions of land, he is facing stif

opposition from various quarters from persons/entities interested in

those schemes/slum structures.

32) Thus, instead of concentrating on implementing the slum

scheme of 120 slum structures in respect of which Petitioner is

appointed as developer, it appears to be more interested in expanding the

scope of its appointment by securing rights in respect of frst and third

portions of the land. Both CEO/SRA and AGRC have rightly

appreciated this position that Petitioner is more interested in

amalgamating the subject SRS with adjoining slum schemes without the

consent of the slum dwellers.

33) Petitioner’s appointment as developer is made in General

Body Meeting held on 31 October 2018. By now, period of about six long

years has elapsed. Even if period upto CEO’s order of 28 August 2023 is

considered time of fve long years had elapsed and Petitioner had not

even secured LOI for commencing construction at the site by clearing

the slums. One of the pretexts raised by Petitioner to explain delay was

COVID-19 pandemic. However, Petitioner’s appointment was made on

31 October 2018 much before the advent of COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite passage of fve/six years after its appointment, Petitioner has

made no progress in implementation of the subject SRS. Petitioner

appears to be more interested in securing rights in respect of adjoining

slums for higher proftability. Useful reference in this regard can be

made to the observation of Single judge of this Court (G. S. Kulkarni J.)

Page No. 23 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

in Galaxy Enterprises Vs. State of Maharashtra

4

has held that delay

even prior to issuance of LOI can be taken into consideration for exercise

of power of termination of developer under Section 13(2) of Slum Act.

This Court has highlighted the efect of delay in implementation of slum

scheme by developers who sit over their proposals for years without

making any progress at the site. This Court has held:

56. On the above clear backdrop, I am not persuaded to accept any of

the submissions of Mr. Dhakephalkar learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner. The contention that the LOI was ultimately granted on 30

May 2016, and hence there is no requirement to change the developer

as the delay stood condoned, cannot be accepted in the clear facts and

circumstances of the case. In fact, this is a clear admission on the part

of the petitioner that there was not only delay but it was inordinate. In

any case LOI sought to be obtained after about ten years of the

petitioner's appointment, would not in any manner condone the

conduct of the petitioner in delaying the scheme and the inherent lack

of diligence, rigour and earnestness which was expected. There is

another reason as to why this argument cannot be accepted, namely

that the society's application under Section 13(2) for change of

developer was prior in time, and the petitioner clearly appears to have

awakened from a deep slumber and started taking actions, with the

engineering department purporting to show of having achieved

another step, now of a LOI being obtained. These actions of the

petitioners as rightly held in both the impugned orders could not have

frustrated the society's application for change of the developer. Even

the payments which are stated to be made by the petitioner to the

SRA towards part of the land premium, would also not assist the

petitioner in the facts of the case. Such payments cannot create any

equity much less a legal right with the petitioner to continue with the

scheme in the facts as they stand. These amounts as partly being paid

are in any case being refunded to the petitioner.

57. There cannot be a myopic approach to these issues of a delay in

implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. Things as they stand

are required to be seen in their entirity. The only mantra for the slum

schemes to be implemented is it's time bound completion and a

machinery to be evolved by the authorities, to have efective measures

in that direction to monitor the schemes as a part of their statutory

4

(2019) 5 SCC 43

Page No. 24 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

obligation to avoid delays. Non-commencement of the slum scheme

for long years and substantial delay in completion of the slum schemes

should be a thing of the past. In the present case, looked from any

angle there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the delay of so

many years at the hands of the petitioner to take bare minimum steps

to commence construction.

58. The authorities should weed away and reprimand persons who are

not genuine developers and who are merely agents and dealers in slum

schemes. These persons after get themselves appointed as developers,

to ultimately deal/sell the slum schemes, as if it is a commodity. Any

loopholes in the rules to this efect, therefore, are required to be

sealed.

60. In any case, the developer cannot be said to possess a vested right

which would mandate the SRA to continue it's appointment for such

delay and when the body appointing the said developer namely the

society itself, in the given set of facts, bonafde and for an acceptable

reasons, lacks confdence in the petitioner as appointed by it. Between

the slum society and the developer, it is merely a contractual dispute.

It cannot be said that the society in adverse circumstances would have

no authority in a resolution so passed by the majority to remove a

developer. The role of the S.R.A. under law is to further the interest

of the slum scheme by exercise of it's powers in the best interest of the

slum redevelopment and pass such appropriate orders to achieve the

said object, in exercising it's powers inter alia under Section 13(2) of

the Slums Act.

34) I have therefore no hesitation in my mind in holding that

Petitioner has deliberately delayed implementation of subject SRS in its

quest to secure additional rights in respect of adjoining slums lands.

Petitioner’s appointment as developer has rightly been terminated by

CEO/SRA. AGRC has rightly rejected Petitioner’s application. I fnd the

orders of the CEO/SRA and AGRC to be unexceptional.

35)The Writ Petition must fail. As observed above apart from

conduct of Petitioner in not making any progress in implementation of

slum scheme for 5/6 years, its conduct in representing before this Court

Page No. 25 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::

Neeta Sawant WP(L)-12949-2024-FC

that it has been allotted slum scheme for rehabilitation of all three

portions of land comprising 432 structures has been found to be

fallacious after undertaking an inquiry by this Court. This resulted in

wastage of substantial and valuable judicial time. Therefore, dismissal of

the Petition cannot be without consequences. Writ Petition is

accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid to the Tata

Memorial Hospital within 8 weeks by producing receipt thereof before

the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court.

36)With the dismissal of the petition, nothing survives in the Interim

Application (L) No. 15499/2024 and the same also accordingly stands

disposed of.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

37)After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Khandeparkar would pray

for continuation of interim order passed in the petition. The prayer is

opposed by Mr. Balsara, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No.3. Considering the reasons recorded in the judgment, I am not

inclined to continue the interim relief. The prayer for continuation of the

interim order is accordingly rejected.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Page No. 26 of 26

10 May 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 20:51:12 :::