Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Not To Be Seen As Real Estate Development Project, It's Linked To Right To Life: Supreme Court

In this case, the appellant was appointed as a developer by respondent no. 1, co-operative House Society of slum dwellers having their hutments in Borivali, Mumbai, on August 20, 2003. The subject land is declared as 'slum area' under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Maharashtra Slum Areas Act). However, it was alleged that the development was unduly prolonged for over two decades. Subsequently, the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) (appellate authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act) terminated the agreement on August 4, 2021, under Section 13 (power of competent authority to redevelop clearance area) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. This decision was challenged before the Bombay High Court which dismissed it. Hence, the present appeal.

In this case, the appellant has claimed that the delay should be examined in different phases. It was justified that between 2003 to 2011, the appellant was engaged in a long-drawn litigation with competing builders; from 2011-2014, it waited to obtain environmental clearance and subsequently, the delay was caused due to the non-cooperation of certain slum dwellers to go toward with the project. Whereas, the respondent contended that the appellant did not have the requisite financial capacity of technical expertise to complete the project. It argued that the delays must be seen as a whole and in any case, it cannot be justified.

The Supreme Court has held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SRA responsible for the development of slums are statutorily bound to ensure that the rehabilitation project is completed within the stipulated time. The court said: “Section 13(2) of the Act specifically empowers the competent authority to re-determine the agreement if it is satisfied that the re-development has not been done within the time specified. The provision is certainly a statutory incorporation of time integrity in the performance of the duty. We recognise this as a statutory duty of the competent authority to ensure that the project is completed within the prescribed time. We have no hesitation even in holding that a writ of mandamus would lie against the concerned authorities if they do not perform the statutory duty of ensuring that the project is completed within the time prescribed.”

It rejected the argument of the appellant and said: "Having examined the matter, we are of the opinion that the delay of 8 years in resolving disputes with a competing builder cannot be a justification under any circumstance. The appellant is a developer and fully understands the process of obtaining environmental clearances while other sanctions and permissions are pending, and it is for him to make all the necessary arrangements. To say the least, the non-cooperation of some of the members cannot be a ground for delaying the project from 2014 to 2019."

The court referred to Susme Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. CEO, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors (2018), wherein the Supreme Court interpreted Section 13(2) and said that it also empowers the SRA to take action and handover the project to some other agency is the development is being delayed.

It also cited Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2008), wherein a full bench of the Bombay High Court remarked that the slum dwellers cannot be expected to occupy a transit accommodation endlessly, without proper maintenance and hygiene when they are eligible to be rehabilitated.

Resultantly, the court has dismissed the civil appeal while imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000 payable to the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 524