Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Prem Siddha along with Tuljabhavani Housing Society Private Limited again filed Writ Petition No.396 of 2020 for a direction to SRA to act upon letters dated 05.03.1999, 01.04.1999 and 09.04.1999 issued by SRA. Prem Siddha has sought for a further direction to SRA to act upon the revised slum rehabilitation scheme submitted by it on 10.09.2007.

15. Mr. Nankani, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sameer Vaidya, learned counsel represent Prem Siddha which is the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.2421 of 2016 and 396 of 2020. Mr. Nankani submits that the entire property upon which the concerned slums are situate admeasures about 42,500 sq.mtrs. out of which about 12,500 sq.mtrs. on plot Nos.91 to 95 and 100 to 104 are leasehold lands of Birla Industries Group Charity Trust (henceforth referred to as 'Birla'). Plot Nos.88 to 90 are reserved for BEST bus depot; plot Nos.96 and 97 are reserved for Bombay Hospital; plot Nos.98 and 99 for BMC water reservoir; 15,000 sq.mtrs. reserved for garden and recreation; and 6000 sq.mtrs. for access road. Prem Siddha had submitted slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of the said area for consideration in the year 1999 and thereafter submitted a revised scheme in the year 2007 (10.09.2007).

17.2. HPC was not at all justified in setting aside the order of SRA on the specious ground that MCGM was not intimated about the hearing by SRA. She submits that show-cause notice dated 25.06.2009 of SRA was marked to MCGM for information and necessary action. MCGM was very much aware about the proceedings under section 13(2) of the Slum Act before SRA to remove Shiv Kripa. MCGM did not raise any objection as to removal of Shiv Kripa. MCGM has not even questioned the order of SRA dated 14.10.2009. In the absence thereof, HPC was not justified in interfering with the order of SRA dated 14.10.2009. She, therefore, submits that impugned order passed by HPC is liable to be set aside and quashed.

18.3. Assailing the resolution of Indira dated 13.08.2007 terminating its agreement with Shiv Kripa, learned counsel submits that a society has no right to terminate / cancel appointment of developer. SRA had proceeded on the basis of amended section 13(2) of the Slum Act but the said provision is not applicable.

18.4. Learned counsel submits that SRA while passing the order dated 14.10.2009 had acted beyond the scope of the show-cause notices dated 25.06.2009 and 03.07.2009. She also submits that SRA could not have appointed Om Omega as the new developer without the consent of 70% of the eligible slum-dwellers finding place in Annexure-II.

40. Let us first deal with order dated 14.10.2009 passed by SRA. The said order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of SRA. On application received from Indira, SRA had issued notice under section 13(2) of the Slum Act to Shiv Kripa to show cause as to why Shiv Kripa should not be removed as the developer for executing the scheme of Indira in the said land and also as to why a new developer should not be appointed. After hearing Indira, Shiv Kripa and Om Omega, SRA held that under section 13(2) of the Slum Act, it has power to change the developer if the registered and permitted society of the slum-dwellers passes a resolution to remove the developer. SRA noted that the scheme of Indira was approved but Shiv Kripa could not carry out the execution. There was long and inordinate delay of ten years from the sanction of the scheme though as per the development agreement entered into between Indira and Shiv Kripa, Shiv Kripa had agreed to complete the scheme in five years. It was also observed that there were serious disputes between the partners of Shiv Kripa and in fact during the hearing before SRA, two sets of partners of Shiv Kripa had appeared. SRA noted from the record that Indira had passed a resolution terminating the development agreement with Shiv Kripa and also had adopted a resolution in its Annual General Body Meeting appointing Om Omega as the new developer. Thus, SRA held that Shiv Kripa had delayed implementation of the scheme for no valid reason and, therefore, it was removed as the developer of Indira. Indira was also permitted to implement the scheme through the newly appointed developer Om Omega, further holding that this was necessary in the interest of 2270 poor slum-dwellers and their families.