LI Network
Published on: December 21, 2023 at 12:22 IST
The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling emphasized that private agreements cannot supersede the statutory mandates of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes.
The Court asserted that the SRA must operate in accordance with its established policies and circulars, with the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 designating it as the ultimate authority for scheme implementation.
Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia referred to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966, which grants SRA the status of a Planning Authority for slums.
The Court cited the SRA’s jurisdiction over cases involving both the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act and highlighted the Bombay High Court’s precedent in Smt. Usha Dhondiram Khairnar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 11505, which held that private entities cannot dictate terms to the SRA.
In the specific case, the SRA proposed a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the Lower Parel Division slum, intending to construct a built-up area of 75854.716 sq. m. for the rehabilitation of 1765 slum dwellers.
The completion of nine towers and the allocation of tenements to 473 slum dwellers in Towers A, B, and C faced obstacles due to a dispute.
The SRA, functioning as a Planning Authority, mandated that over 70% of eligible hutment dwellers select their developer under its supervision.
The majority of slum dwellers formed the “Shramik Ekta Co-Operative Housing Federation,” appointing “Lokhandwala Kataria Constructions” as their developer. Despite this, a minority section, forming the “Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti,” interfered with construction, leading to a compromise decree between the Developer and the appellant.
The appellant sought preferential allotment as per the private MoU/Settlement terms, challenging the SRA’s decision to conduct allotment by draw of lots, outlined in Circular No. 162. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court clarified that the private arrangement was unauthorized and in defiance of the existing rehabilitation scheme.
It upheld the Bombay High Court’s order, directing the SRA to proceed with the allotment in adherence to established procedures. Additionally, the Court urged the SRA to scrutinize the Developer’s conduct and take appropriate action for bypassing statutory procedures.
Case Title: SAYUNKTA SANGHARSH SAMITI vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA