Early Rehabilitation Primary Focus Under Slums Act, Unconscionable Delay In Redevelopment Ground To Remove Developer: Bombay HC

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Yash Developers challenging its removal by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) in a project wherein transit rents were not paid to at least 199 slum dwellers and development hadn't commenced for over 18 years. The CEO of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) had refused to remove the developer despite innumerable complaints after which the slum dwellers society's grievances were redressed by AGRC.

A single judge bench of Justice GS Kulkarni ruled that the CEO – SRA or AGRC are duty bound to hold the interest and early rehabilitation of slum dwellers as paramount while considering an application to remove the developer u/s 13 of the Act.

"Such rampant abuse of the powers and failure of rehabilitation in the manner as agreed in the Development Agreement was a reason sufficient for removal of the petitioner which has been completely overlooked by the Chief Executive Officer-SRA. The petitioners could not have been under a wrong impression that once the development was assigned to the petitioners by the society, the petitioner would forever possess such development rights and could try to evade law to the prejudice of the slum dwellers and on a day-to-day basis continue to violate their basic fundamental rights."

It was not necessary that only the managing committee of the slum society could complain against the developer and SRA's CEO could in fact suo-motu investigate delays, the bench held.

Justice Kulkarni stressed need for a scientific mechanism by which the technical and financial ability of a developer is tested by the SRA and only after such scrutiny should the developer be permitted to enter into a development agreement. However, in case after case the exact reverse happens wherein the developer runs the show, the court observed.

"It is high time that the authorities take a strict view of such matters and on a holistic consideration of materials, come to a well considered conclusion as to whether genuinely a developer has wherewithal and a real capacity to undertake redevelopment when it concerns a matter of re-development of a slum. This more particularly considering the fact that a society has no real expertise to judge the expertise of a developer…"

In the case at hand the developer was greatly dependent on third parties for financial and technical support.

Moreover, it is non-negotiable for the developer to rehabilitate slum dwellers in consonance with the development agreement including all its terms, "it cannot be that the development agreement as entered between the society and the developer only remains a farce and a tool in the hands of a developer to foist himself on the slum dwellers without a fear of removal."

The court emphasized that for a developer it may be a commercial project but for slum dwellers, it is their very livelihood, a roof over their head which is the very object and intention of the slum legislation and the slums scheme.

The society appointed the developer in 2003. However, last August, AGRC Maharashtra removed Yash Developers as builder for Harihar Krupa cooperative housing society SRA project in Borivali East and permitted slum dwellers to appoint a new one. The builder petitioned the High Court last year to challenge the AGRC order.

The builder contended the delay was neither intentional, nor by him. While upholding his ouster, the High Court extended the interim relief granted to the developer in August 2021 and stayed the order for six weeks.

Case Title: Yash Developers Versus Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 397 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment