Matching Fragments
Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall
be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why
such order should not be passed."
43. Shri Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing
for Susme urged that under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, the
SRA is entitled to take action only against the owner. He also
submits that Section 13(2) will apply only when there is
violation of the conditions imposed under sub-section 10 of
Section 12 of the Slum Act and the condition with regard to
the time should also be a condition contained in sub-section
10 of Section 12. He submits that there is no power to take
action under this section against the developer. According to
him, action could have been taken by the SRA against the
Society but not against Susme.
44. 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 recognized 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, specified.
47. Having held so, we are of the view that Shri Darius
Khambata, learned senior counsel, is right in his submission
that normally under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, action by
the SRA has to be taken against the owner. Here, we may
repeat that this is a unique case where the slum dwellers are
the members of the owner-Society. The Society, in turn, has
given power of attorney to the builder. The builder virtually
has two roles – one as developer and the other as power of
attorney holder of the owner. Both are closely interlinked and
inextricably mixed with each other. Therefore, though
normally we would have accepted the contention that under
Section 13(2) action can only be taken against the owner, in
the present case, we are unable to accept this contention in
its totality. We may point out that even the SRA, in its order,
has itself noted that since the Society is the owner of the plot
of land, it is empowered and within its right to terminate the
agreement executed with the said developer for breaches
committed by the developer. It has, however, held that a
private dispute between the Society and the developer cannot
prevent the SRA from discharging its obligations. The SRA
agreed with the submission made by the Society that Susme
had not completed the project within time. It has taken
action under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. The action taken
by the SRA is to remove Susme as developer which amounts
to cancelling the letter of intent issued in favour of Susme.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) The powers, duties and functions of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority shall be,-
xxx xxx xxx
(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.”
51. A bare reading of these provisions shows that in terms of
clause (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3A 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
suffering for more than 25 years and, therefore the action
taken by SRA to remove Susme for the unjustified delay was
totally justified.
