Mahadev Jagpat & Ors Vs. Chief Executive officer & Ors  Insc 754 (7 November 2006)
Ar. Lakshmanan & Tarun Chatterjee
2-5 & 8 IN Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10281/2006 AND I.A.No.1 in S.L.P.
(C) No.of 2006 (CC 5527) M/s Sigtia Construction Company Private Ltd. Applicant
Ram Chandra Mahadev Jagpat & Ors. .Respondents Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
No.1 for impleadment is ordered on 10.07.2006.
Construction Company Private Limited was impleaded as respondent No.5 in
Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006.
No.3 of 2006 was filed by the applicant - M/s Sigtia Construction Company
Private Limited to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by this Court in
Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006. The order passed by this Court in
Special Leave Petition No. 10281/2006 dated 27.06.2006 reads thus:
R D E R Heard Mr.L.N.Rao, senior advocate for the petitioners.
Sanjay V. Khande, Mr.B.S.Rao and Ms. Indra Sawhney, advocates accepts notice on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. We also heard their submissions.
prayer for interim relief, the petitioners seek direction directing the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority to issue a letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya
Developers and Construction Company (P) Ltd. For undertaking re- development
work in the slum situated at Irla Tank, S.V. Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai.
grievance of the petitioners is that despite no legal impediment, the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority was not issuing the letter of intent in favour of M/s
Keya Developers and Construction Company (P) Ltd. despite a request made by the
Society. According to them, it was merely a case of replacement of previous
developers M/s Sigtia Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. who had not even started
the project even after almost eight years and whose agreement with the Society
had come to an end by efflux of time.
Sunil K.Varma, advocate, appears for the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra (E), Mumbai (respondent No.1). The learned
counsel submits that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority will issue proper orders
within two weeks from today. In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1, we direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to
issue the letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers and Construction
Company (P) Ltd. which is also represented by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior
counsel and the Society is represented by Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned senior
Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly." The reasons for
recalling the order as stated in I.A.No.3 of 2006 are as under:- The applicant Sigtia
Construction Company Private Limited (in short "Sigtia") was
appointed as developer by the Vile Parle Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing
Society Limited (hereinafter called "Society" the respondent No.2).
The applicant who is directly affected by an order appointing M/s Keya
Developers and Construction Private Limited (in short "Keya") as
Developer was not made a party respondent in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 and
also in the Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006 although the applicant was
a party in the previous proceedings, namely, Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004
which was filed before the High Court and the Special Leave Petition No. 11318
of 2005 and 19848 of 2005.
to the applicant, the respondents in the Special Leave Petition No. 10281 are
not contesting respondents and particularly respondent No.1 - the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (in short "SRA") had taken a stand before
this Court in earlier round in Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 by way
of an affidavit that they will abide by any orders which may be passed by this
Court. Nobody appeared for Bombay Municipal Corporation on 27.06.2006.
Therefore, there was nobody present who could have opposed the passing of the
order. The applicant, against whom allegations were made, was not made a party
to the special leave petition. It was the duty of the petitioner in the special
leave petition, to make the applicant Sigtia, who is directly affected, a
party to the special leave petition. However, instead of doing that this Court
was given the impression that all the affected parties were before this Court.
Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant Sigtia made the
following submissions as to why the order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave
petition No. 10281 of 2006 should be recalled.
Sigtia was appointed as developers in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of
the property in the Suburban district of Mumbai at Irla Tank by the general
body of the proposed Prem Nagar Housing Society;
submitted the proposal for re-development of the slum known as Prem Nagar
situated at Vile Parle (W), CTS No. 439-442; 446-448; 451-1-15, 452, 453, 454A
under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on 11.09.2002 with the consent of 1054 hutment
all 1054 individual agreements and consent affidavits were filed by slum
dwellers in favour of Sigtia before the SRA and approved by the Additional Collector
(Encroachment) by its order dated 23.01.2003;
When the applicant was about to get the Letter of Intent, the Writ Petition No.
988 of 2004 was filed on 31.03.2004 before the High Court of Bombay by Mr. Nazir
Khan Yakub Khan and 8 others slum dwellers challenging the appointment of Sigtia
as developer to undertake the re-development of the slum area on the ground
that Sigtia was having neither technical expertise nor financial capability to
complete the project.
the above writ petition, the Chief Promoter of the Society filed two affidavits
before the High Court dated 07.06.2004 and 29.06.2004 expressing confidence and
faith in the technical and financial capability of Sigtia to execute the
project. The Chief Executive Officer, SRA also filed additional affidavit on
11.02.2005 supporting the scheme in totality.
High Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 on 11.03.2005
directed the SRA to put additional conditions as follows:-
Obtaining security deposit of Rs.2.5 crores from the developer to safeguard the
interests of the Slum Dwellers.
Supervision by the Senior Engineer of Bombay Municipal Corporation at the cost
of the developer.
construction of sale component till all the slum dwellers are rehabilitated in
the new buildings, and d. Undertaking/ indemnity from the developer for
fulfilling the above three conditions.
9 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004, one Nazir Khan Yakub Khan alone
filed a Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 challenging the order of the
High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004. Sigtia was impleaded in the
special leave petition as Respondent No.7. The Special Leave Petition was
withdrawn by the petitioner on 26.09.2005.
other petitioners out of original 9 filed Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of
2005 challenging the order in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 and obtained
interim stay on 19.09.2005 from this Court. Due to the above said stay order, Sigtia
could not take any further steps towards the implementation of the project. The
stay order continued till 13.04.2006 on which date this Court dismissed the
Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 as withdrawn.
the pendency of the Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005, counsel of Prem Nagar
Co-operative Housing Society gave notices dated 26.04.2005 and 06.06.2005
purporting to revoke the development agreement and the Power of Attorney
executed in favour of Sigtia. By letter dated 15.06.2005, Sigtia gave reply
questioning the authority of the persons purporting to terminate and revoke the
said development agreement and Power of Attorney.
public notice dated 05.09.2005 was issued by the Vile Parle Society referring
to the termination of the development agreement and power of attorney by the Society.
The Management of the society also decided to appoint one M/s Keya Developers
(in short "Keya") to execute the project and intimation to this
effect was sent to SRA by way of an application.
above special leave petition, certain interlocutory applications were filed by
some hutment dwellers praying for directions to SRA to examine and consider the
proposed scheme for rehabilitation submitted by M/s Keya. These IAs were
dismissed along with the special leave petition.
very same slum dwellers filed Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 seeking the same
prayer alleging that Sigtia did not commenced re-development of the properties
in terms of the agreement entered into with SRA and was never interested in
re-development of the said property for the benefit of slum dwellers. Sigtia
was not made a party to this writ petition.
wrote a letter to the CEO, SRA on 25.04.2006 stating that Sigtia was keenly
interested in developing the Vile Parle Slum and would take immediate steps to
deposit Rs. 2.5 crores by SRA in the matter and also would furnish indemnity as
required by SRA. On 04.05.2006, the High Court passed an order in Writ Petition
No. 1277 of 2006 directing the SRA to call the parties in terms of the judgment
of the Court.
02.06.2006, Sigtia wrote a letter to the SRA stating that Keya had obtained the
order dated 04.05.2006 from the High Court in writ petition No. 1277 of 2006
and that the applicant was not made a party to the writ petition and,
therefore, they were not heard at all and requested the SRA to postpone the
hearing fixed on 03.06.2006 to enable Sigtia to move the High Court. However,
there was no response from the SRA.
02.06.2006, Sigtia wrote a letter to SRA enclosing a cheque for a sum of Rs.2.5
crores towards the interest free deposit with SRA as the performance related
guarantee as directed by the High Court in its judgment dated 11.03.2005.
Law Officer of SRA conveyed to Sigtia that the cheque for Rs.2.5 crores could
not be accepted by SRA as there was no specific order of the High Court to
accept Rs.2.5 crores from Sigtia. The Principal Secretary, Housing Department
in compliance with the order dated 11.03.2005 issued clear directions to SRA to
issue Letter of Intent in favour of Sigtia.
21.06.2006, the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 filed special
leave petition before this Court against the order dated 04.05.2005 and by way
of interim relief prayed that SRA be directed to issue Letter of Intent in favour
was again not made a party in the special leave petition.
Court, on 27.06.2006, passed an order directing SRA to issue Letter of Intent
in favour of Keya within two weeks.
Jaitley, learned senior counsel strenuously contended that before issuance of
the Letter of Intent certain conditions ought to be fulfilled by a developer as
per the rules and regulations of SRA and as per the guidelines and regulations
of SRA, a developer needs to obtain Annexure-II and Annexure-III from SRA.
Annexure II is issued when the developer shows that he has consent from atleast
70% eligible hutment dwellers and Annexure III is issued when SRA is satisfied
about the financial and technical capability of the developer. It is not
disputed that the applicant has obtained both the Annexures and therefore there
is no reason for not issuing LOI to the applicant. It is submitted that the
Keya Developer does not have consent of atleast 70% hutment dwellers and
therefore is not entitled to get LOI issued in its favour for the said project.
Moreover SRA having been set up by the State in exercise of its powers under
the Slum Act, it is ultimately for it to decide as to who should be permitted
to undertake the redevelopment of slum and the SRA has shown confidence in the
applicant by filing affidavits before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No.988 of 2004.
to Mr. Arun Jaitley, the purported termination of the development agreement
with Sigtia by the society is illegal, without authority of law as the society
has no authority to do so. It is further submitted that 1054 slum dwellers
filed consent affidavits in favour of the applicant in the year 2002 itself and
therefore the Chief Promoter and few Committee members of the Society cannot
terminate the appointment of the developer. In fact the original Writ
Petitioner who filed Writ Petition No. 988/2004, namely, Nazir Khan Yakub Khan
and others made serious allegations against the Chief Promoter - Shri Vichare
and few Managing Committee members that they have manipulated the records and
got the extra units to their family members.
would further submit that as per Section 3(k) of the Maharashtra Slum Area
(Improvement, Clearance and Re- development) Act, 1971, the SRA is bound to
follow the directions given by the Government of Maharashtra for the
implementation of provisions under the Act and that the Government issued
directions to SRA to issue letter of intent to Sigtia way back on 20.06.2005
but those directions have not been complied with. Mr. Jaitley further submitted
that the main grievance of the slum dwellers in the I.As filed in this Court
and in the Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 is that no steps have been taken by Sigtia
Constructions towards the completion of the project. It is submitted that after
obtaining Annexure II and Annexure III from SRA, when the applicant was about
to get LOI the writ petition No. 988 of 2005 was filed on 31.3.2004 challenging
the technical and financial capability of the applicant. After the said Writ
Petition was dismissed, the applicant approached SRA many times to get LOI but
it received no response and this fact has been recorded by the Principal
Secretary, Housing in its order dated 20.06.2005. Thereafter, stay order was
passed by this Court in SLP(C) No.19848 of 2005 staying the order of the High
Court dated 11.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004. After the said
SLP was dismissed by this Court on 13.04.2006 the applicant has written several
letters to SRA to issue LOI and also sent a cheque of Rs. 2.51 crores but the
same was not accepted by SRA. That there has been no delay on the part of the
applicant in the implementation of the development work but it is due to
frivolous litigations filed by some slum dwellers who were put up by rival
developers that the project was stalled.
Jaitely further submitted that the applicant was a necessary party in the Writ
Petition No.1277 of 2006 and also to the above special leave petition as it was
appointed as developer by the society and is at having consent of more than 70%
of the slum dwellers in the area and therefore, any order passed issuing Letter
of Intent to some other developer gravely injures the applicant and therefore
no such order can be passed without giving an opportunity to the applicant to
his arguments, Mr. Jaitley submitted that the order has been obtained behind
the back of the applicant Sigtia and that the order is contrary to the order of
the High Court dated 11.03.2005 passed in writ petition No. 988 of 2004 which
has become final with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005
and 19848 of 2005.
this context, Mr. Arun Jaitley invited our attention to the order dated
11.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004.
time of hearing, Mr. Jaitley also invited our attention to the order passed by
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 dated 04.05.2006. It is useful
to reproduce the said short order which reads thus:
F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE: 4th May,2006.
ordinary course, we would not have entertained this petition when there is a
society who is responsible for the development. However, on behalf of
respondent No.2, their learned counsel makes a statement that they had already
communicated to Respondent No.1 to appoint respondent No.3 as a developer and
that the application is pending before the Respondent No.1 pursuant to the
termination of the first developer by Respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 to
call the parties in terms of the judgement of this court and after hearing the
parties, dispose of the application of Respondent No.2 according to law within
the period of six weeks from today.
REBELLO, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)" He also drew our attention to para 12
of the order in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 passed by the High Court which
SRA having been set up by the State in exercise of its power under the Slum
Act, it is ultimately, for it to decide as to who should be permitted to
undertake the redevelopment of slum. In this behalf, perusal of the relevant
statutory provisions including Section 13 would make it abundantly clear that
the SRA is empowered to permit land holders of occupants of an area which is
declared as slum rehabilitation area to undertake scheme of development of such
land and if they do not come forward with a scheme for redevelopment within a
reasonable time, the SRA may decide to redevelop such land by entrusting it to
any other Agency.
instant case, respondent No.7 has been selected by respondent No.6. The SRA is
satisfied that the requisite 70% numbers/ occupiers of slum area have come
forward and reposed confidence in respondent no.7. Since petitioners raised
objections to the capacity and capability of respondent No.7, this Court issued
directions that these aspects be scrutinized and verified once again. Even that
exercise is now complete and a report is submitted by the CEO of SRA.
such circumstances, we are of the view that all aspects have been considered by
the SRA and its decision cannot be faulted. More so, when the proposal is at a
primary stage." Our attention has also been drawn to the order of this
Court in Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 dated 13.04.2006 dismissing
the writ petition as withdrawn filed by Mr. Nilesh Wakadey and Ors. preferred
against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 in Writ Petition No. 988 of
Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 filed against the very same order in
writ petition No. 988 of 2004 was also dismissed as withdrawn.
also usefully refer to the letter dated 02.06.2006 of Sigtia addressed to SRA,
the relevant portion of which reads thus:
this connection, we wish to submit that M/s. Sigtia Construction Pvt. Limited
is bound by the directive and conditions in the High Court Judgment dt. 11.3.2005
and also by the guidelines of the SRA for the development of the Vile-Parle (W)
Slum project. As such, the company will be complying with all the conditions
recommended by the SRA and accepted by the Hon'ble High Court.
pursuance of the said High Court order dt.11.3.2005, M/s. Sigtia Construction
Pvt. Ltd. is hereby depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores
Fifty Lakhs only) drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Santacruz (W) Branch,
Mumbai vide Cheque No.991396 dt. 2.6.2006 towards the interest free deposit
with SRA as the performance related guarantee as directed by the Hon'ble High
Court in its landmark judgment dt.11.3.2005. The SRA may put it in its fixed
deposit account, as it may deem fit.
interest free deposit of Rs. 2.5 crocres, M/s. Sigtia Construction Pvt. Ltd.
will comply with and abide other conditions such as
First we will construct Rehab portion in all respect and then ask permission of
accept the Supervision of B.M.C. Engineer who will monitor the project.
will give required undertaking/indemnity bond etc.
directed by Hon'ble High Court and as desired by SRA." We may also refer
to the proceedings of the Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government
of Maharashtra on the representation received from Sigtia and the orders passed
thereunder. The relevant portion reads thus:- "In view of the above, I, N.
Rama Rao, Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra,
in the capacity of the Administrative Head of the Department, direct that
LOI be issued in favour of Sigtia Constructions Pvt.Ltd. who have a joint
venture agreement with Spark Developers as stated above and who had completed
all the formalities to ensure the implementation of the project without
permitting any further delay
The CEO, SRA is further directed to comply with the other directions and
suggestions given by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 11.03 2005.
The Developer also, hereby directed to comply with the conditions imposed by
the Hon'ble High Court in the said order." It is to be noted that this
order was not challenged before any forum.
attention was also drawn to the notice dated 26.04.2005 issued by Mr. Suresh P.
Chaugule to Sigtia and the further notice dated 06.06.2005 by the very same
advocate to the Chief Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority on termination of
appointment of developer. A copy of the same was also marked to Sigtia
Constructions. Our attention was also drawn to the IA No. Nil of 2006 filed by Nilesh
Wakade and Ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19848 of 2005 in which Babita
Baliram Tambe & Ors. as applicants made the following prayer in the above
R A Y E R
in the facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
Direct that the rehabilitation of the slum area in question is carried out at
Direct M/s. Keya Developers & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Developers &
Construction (P) Ltd., Tardeo Air- conditioned Market, Tardeo, Mumbai-34 to
produce its proposed Scheme for Rehabilitation;
Direct the Respondent Authorities to forthwith examine and consider the said
proposed Scheme for Rehabilitation submitted by M/s Keya Developers &
Construction Pvt. Ltd. Developers (P) Ltd; and
the above scheme is approved by the Respondent No.2, then the Respondent
Authorities and the developer be directed to forthwith implement the Scheme in
a time bound manner subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
also brought to our notice about the undertaking given on the stamp paper by
the Chief Promoter and Members of the Managing Committee of Vile Parle Prem Nagar
Cooperative Housing Society who declared as under:-
That the General Body of the Vile Parle Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing Society
(Proposed) in their meeting held on 8.9.2001 has confirmed the appointment of
M/s. Sigtia Construction Pvt. Ltd. as our Developer and Shri Bipin Khatri as
Architect of the S.R.A. project to be undertaken by our society.
That in pursuance to the above appointments of the Developer and the Architect,
both agencies have carried out voluminous work in connection with the
formulation of S.R.A proposal and to submit the same to the office of S.R.A.
For doing this they had to obtain, the necessary undertakings from over 1000
hutment dwellers on Rs.20/- stamps paper, surveying the area by appointing
Surveyor, preparation of plans and other relevant documents for obtaining
Annexure-II. The developer has obtained Annexure-II and submitted the required
information in Annexure I & III to the office of S.R.A. for issuance of
Letter of Intent to our S.R.A. proposal in shortest possible time with active
support from the society and we are satisfied with their performance in this
That we have not engaged any other Developers or the Architect. This question
did not arise since the present Developer and the Architect have done their
duties to the expectation of the Society. While carrying out the job by the
Developer and the Architect they have carried out the job with due consultation
with the Society and have kept us informed of the progress of the work from
time to time.
That the Society hereby confirm and undertake to continue the Developer M/s. Sigtia
Construction Pvt.Ltd. and the Architect Mr. Bipin Khatri as our Developer and
Architect respectively till the completion of the S.R.A. project under D.C.
Regulation 33(10) undertaken by our Vile Parle Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing
Society (Proposed) For Vile-Parle Premnagar Co-operative Housing Society.
(Proposed) Sd/- Shamrao A. Vichare Chief Promoter Date:26.2.2004" Mr. Goolam
E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General appeared for the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority. He placed before us the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. He also invited our attention to the
procedure for submission, processing and approval of Slum Rehabilitation
Schemes which reads thus:-
All slums and pavements whose inhabitants' names and structures appear in the
electoral roll prepared with reference to 1st January, 1995 or a date prior thereto and who are
actual occupants of the hutments are eligible for the slum rehabilitation
or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum or pavement in a viable
stretch at one place have to show their willingness to join slum rehabilitation
scheme and come together to form a co-operative housing society of all eligible
hutment-dwellers through a resolution to that effect.
following resolution should be adopted:
Resolution electing a chief Promoter.
Resolution giving the chief promoter authority to apply for reservation of name
for co-operative housing society.
collect share capital (Rs. 50/- per member for slum societies) and Re. 1/- as
entrance fee and to open account in Mumbai District Central Co- operative/Maharashtra State
Co-operative Bank Ltd (any branch)
chief promoter, office bearers and the members of the proposed society should
collect the documents such as 7/12 extract and the PR card of the plot on which
the slum is situate. They should then get the plot surveyed/measured and
prepare map of the plot showing slum structures therein with the help of
surveyors attached to the office of Additional Collector (Encroachment) or the
Deputy Collector (Encroachment) or the Deputy Collector (Encroachment of the
While undertaking the survey, they should collect the information of the
proposed members/slum-dwellers and fill up land occupied by the slum-dwellers,
number and type of structures such as residential, industrial, commercial,
amenity structures etc. and the list of eligible and ineligible occupants and
consent of the slum-dwellers to join the scheme. Earlier the
promoter/co-operative housing society had to first approach the different
Competent Authorities namely Additional Collector for the slums on government
and private lands and the land owning authorities for the slums on different
public authority lands, for obtaining certified Annexure-II, before they could
put in application for slum rehabilitation scheme SRA. As a simplification
measure, this procedure is now discontinued and Annexure-II format is now
required to be filled by the promoter/co-operative housing society itself for
submitting building proposal to SRA, so that the scrutiny of the proposal and
certification of Annexure-II can start simultaneously. Annexure-II needs to be
submitted in duplicate. As a measure of further simplification, Additional
Collector (Encroachment) is being designated as the sole Competent Authority
for deciding eligibility and for taking eviction action against
non-participants in slum rehabilitation schemes."
chief promoter and the office bearers of the proposed society should then apply
for name reservation of the proposed co-operative housing society along with
the self- prepared Annexure-II and the required resolutions to the Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. To facilitate this, office of the
Assistant Registrar has been started in SRA itself. It is no longer necessary
to approach different offices of the Co-operation Department for this purpose.
The assistant Registrar/SRA will issue a letter reserving the name for the
proposed co-operative housing society and permission to open a bank account in
the proposed society's name.
While the above steps are being taken, the decision to search a competent
developer to act as a promoter has to be taken up by the proposed co-operative
housing society of slum-dwellers. The society itself or an NGO/developer/owner
can take up slum rehabilitation scheme as a promoter.
promoter so chosen has to enter into agreement with every eligible slum-dweller
while putting up slum rehabilitation proposal to SRA for approval. SRA is in
the process of trying to evolve standard formats for the following four types
of agreements required in the scheme, with the approval of the State
Consent-cum-agreement between the promoter and the slum-dwellers.
Development rights/Agreement to lease between the promoter and the land owning
Lease agreement between the land owning authority and the co-operative society
Lease agreement between the land owning authority and the co-operative society
of free-sale tenement buyers.
promoter has also to appoint an architect in consultation with the proposed
co-operative housing society of slum-dwellers to prepare the plans of
development of the slum area as per the DCR-33(10). It is expected that the
architect ensures community participation in preparation of the building plans.
All required documents such as building plan, layout plan, PR Card etc. along
with Annexure-I, Annexure-II and Annexure-III are to be submitted to SRA by the
architect along with an application for the slum rehabilitation scheme. A
checklist of all such documents required for submission is available in SRA
Annexure-III is prescribed to asses the financial capability of the promoter.
The items contained in Annexure-III are self explanatory. Keeping in view the
sensitivity of this information, it is kept strictly confidential by SRA.
After a pre-security by a designated engineer of SRA, to ensure completeness of
the proposal submitted, so far as documents are concerned, proposals are
accepted. Then a computerized file number is allotted to the scheme on payment
of scrutiny fees which are charged at half file number is allotted to the
scheme on payment of scrutiny fees which are charged bat half the rate of the
Municipal Corporation's general building permission fees. Upon acceptance, the
scrutiny of Annexures, I, II and III start simultaneously in the building
permission Wing, Eligibility Certification Wing and Accounts & Finance Wing
respectively." He also invited our attention to para 18 of the order in
Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 dated 11.03.2005 "In the affidavit filed on
11th February, 2005 the SRA has further pointed out that the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme proposal is at primary scrutiny stage and not yet
have pointed out that eligibility of the members of Managing Committee of
respondent no.6 shall be thoroughly scrutinized by the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority before issuing LOI and in any case within eight weeks from the date
of this affidavit. Mr. Singh appearing for 7th respondent makes a statement
that the developer will file necessary undertaking as per para No.7 of the
affidavit dated 11th
February 2005 of SRA,
within such time as is stipulated by it. He has also agreed to file an
undertaking in terms of para 7 of this affidavit in this Court in case the
Letter of intent is issued in favour of respondent no.7. He has also agreed to
furnish indemnity as insisted by SRA." He also specifically drew our attention
to the order dated 11.03.2005 in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 and the order
dated 04.05.2006 in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 and also the application for
direction filed by Babita Baliram Tambey on the prayer made by him in the IA in
special leave petition No. 19848 of 2005. The said Babita Baliram was also
petitioner No. 10 in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 which was verified in
April, 2006 whereas the final order in the said writ petition was made on
04.05.2006. Concluding his arguments, the learned Solicitor General submitted
that as per the guidelines there are several conditions to be fulfilled by the
slum dwellers/proposed society as well as by the proposed developer and remarks
required to be obtained on the proposal from concerned authorities before
issuing Letter of Intent. The SRA also to verify the resolution passed by the
general body of the slum dwellers, proposed society by majority for appointing
or replacing the developer for the development of the scheme.
also necessary to verify by the SRA to see whether the plot under the
development is not affected by any reservation such as playground or recreation
ground in view of the interim stay order in writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 of
the High Court. The SRA has to verify whether the proposed appointed developer
has the financial capacity to undertake and complete the same. Therefore, in
the context of the submissions made above by the learned Solicitor General
further directions with regard to this Court's order dated 27.06.2006 should be
given to SRA. As already noticed, the writ petition No. 1277 of 2006 was filed
by the very same petitioner in SLP No. 10281 of 2006 Sigtia was not made a
party to the writ petition No. 1277 of 2006. However, the High Court, by order
dated 04.05.2006 in writ petition No. 1277 of 2006 has directed the SRA to call
the parties in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated 11.03.2005 in writ
petition No. 988 of 2004 and after hearing the parties disposed of the
application of the society respondent No.2 according to law within 6 weeks from
04.03.2006. It is also useful to refer to the direction given in the order
dated 11.03.2005 in para 20 in writ petition No. 988 of 2004. The High Court,
by the said order, has observed that it is not necessary to quash or set aside
the Scheme or issue further directions as sought and that final approval have
not been granted by SRA and if SRA decides not to issue the Letter of Intent in
favour of respondent No.7 (Sigtia), it will always be open for the parties to
submit a fresh development scheme. In view of the order dated 11.03.2005 and
04.05.2006 of the High Court, the learned Solicitor General submitted that the
SRA has to call both Sigtia and Keya in order to dispose of the application of
the society according to law.
Salve appearing for the petitioner in special leave petition Shri Ramchandra Mahadev
Jagpat submitted that SRA cannot decide any contractual dispute and that the
order dated 11.03.2005 put certain obligations on Sigtia and that the Society
in its general body meeting dated 29.05.2005 terminated the agreement with Sigtia
and decided to invite other builders. In this context, he drew our attention to
the unanimous resolution passed by the Society in regard to the appellant of
Keya for the development of slum property at Premnagar dated 10.06.2005. This
letter dated 10.06.2005 was addressed to Keya Developer and Construction
Company, Mumbai. The letter reads as follows:
are informing hereof that the Managing Committee had decided in the meeting
held on 6th June, 2005 Monday at 8.00 p.m. vide Resolution No.6 to develop the
property bearing C.S. Nos. 439,439-1 & 2,440-1 to 6,441, 441-1 to
3,442,442-1 to 3,443,443-1 to 15,444,444-1 to 6,446,447,447-1 to 3,448,448-1 to
5,451-1 to 3,452-1 to 24,453,453-1 to 5,454(A), Irla, Vile-parle (West) in the
District of Mumbai, the area is 28200 sq. mtrs. And the owner is the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. This land be declared Slum as per Slum Act 1971
Sub-section 4 (1). You are appointed to re-develop the said property as per Maharashtra
Government Rules and Regulations. In the subject-matter we are enclosing
herewith the true certified copy to you. You are requested to intimate your
consent in this regards and co-operation.
Extract of Resolution No. 6 of General lBody meeting held on 8th June 2005 at 8.00p.m. Committee Office RESOLUTION NO.6.
that M/s Keya Developer and Construction Pvt.Ltd.
its office at 302, Tardeo Air Condition Market, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400024 is
and be appointed as Developer to develop the slum property by providing
permanent alternate accommodation of 225 sq.ft. Carpet Area to all eligible
Slum dwellers and to sell balance from sale component in open market as per
O.C.R.33 (10) of 1991.
power care given to said developer to enable him to exercise the powers for the
development of the said property.
appointment will remaining in force and valid till entire Project is
successfully completed in all respect as tenant are handed over to all slum
dwellers. No an y Manaaging Committee, existing or forth coming, shall have any
right to change the developer under any circumstances whatsoever may be the
By: Mrs.Sandhaya Ketemkar Seconded By: Mr. Sanjay Kadam RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY
PASSED Sd/- (Mr. Shamrao Vicharee) Chief Promoter" He also drew our
attention to the subsequent events in the appointment of Keya Developers and
the letter dated 10.06.2005 issued to Keya Developers made in the I.A. in 19848
of 2005 filed by Babita Baliram. He also invited our attention to the second
round of litigation on the non-deposit of the amount by Sigtia. He also
submitted that Sigtia have acted on termination and have not challenged the
termination of the agreement.
Salve also submitted that there is no question of fraud having played upon by
this Court as alleged or told and that the applicant Sigita has conveniently
not mentioned that his agreement with the society had come to an end by efflux
of time and stood cancelled on 24.04.2005 and that the society had also
unanimously terminated the appointment of Sigtia as the developer and that the
prayer in writ petition No. 1277 of 2006 was directed against the SRA and that
there was no prayer or relief sought against the Sigtia and, therefore, Sigtia
was not arrayed as a party in the said writ petition and that there was also no
reason to make Sigtia as a party as they had been replaced by a new developer
as far back as June, 2005 of which the Sigtia had notice. Mr. Salve further
submitted that it is incorrect to say that the parties before this Court in
special leave petition (C) No. 10281 of 2006 were not the affected parties. In
fact all the parties are affected parties excepting the Sigtia who has
undertaken no development work from 1997 and even after agreement dated 2002
was entered into with the society and therefore, Sigtia has no subsisting legal
or other rights whatsoever and the present I.A. to recall the order deserves to
9 of 2006 Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel filed an application for impleadment
in I.A. No. 9 of 2006 on behalf of Nazeer Khan Yakub Khan who is also slum
dweller. Learned senior counsel submitted even that in 1997 Sigtia was
appointed by the Society as a developer for the slum and the appointment was
approved by SRA. However, no efforts were taken by Sigtia for development. As
per the agreement Sigtia the agreement has to complete the entire development
work within 3 years and if the development work was not so completed the
agreement was to be treated as cancelled automatically. It is further argued
that Sigtia had taken no efforts for development of the slum and in fact had no
financial or technical capability to carry out the development.
had also not deposited the 2.5 crores as interest free deposit and, therefore,
the applicant in I.A. No. 9 of 2006 filed special leave petition No. 11318 of
2005 before this Court challenging the order dated 11.03.2005 and in the
meantime, the agreement of Sigtia with the society to develop the slum itself came
to an end on the expiry of 3 years from the date of agreement and, thereafter,
the Society at a general body meeting dated 29.05.2005 resolved to terminate
the appointment of Sigtia as the developer and the SRA was also informed of
such decision since the appointment of Sigtia stood terminated and a new
developer had been appointed the applicant Nazeer Khan Yakub Khan had no
further grievance as it was apparent that the development work of the slum
would finally commence and in these circumstances the applicant withdraw
special leave petition (C) No. 11318 of 2005 on 26.09.2005.
Dave further submitted that the applicant in IA No. 9 of 2006 had always
opposed the appointment of Sigtia as developers as they had no technical
capability to carry out the development work and in fact undertook no work
whatsoever for over 8 years to the department of the slum dwellers and other
similar situate slum dwellers. It is further submitted the order in special
leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 is fair and just and in the interest of the
slum dwellers who will finally be able to see the development work of their
slum being undertaken and that the Sigtia have no legal right for undertaking
the development of the slum in view of the termination and automatic cancellation
of their agreement with the Society.
No. 8 of 2006 The applicant is a Zuveriya Developer. Their application for
intervention is allowed and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, advocate was heard on his
behalf. I.A. No. 8 of 2006 was filed to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 in
special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 and allow the applicant to file a
reply to the above special leave petition. We have perused the intervention
application. The applicant was not a party to the earlier writ petition. The
applicant put up a proposal to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
being the competent authority under the act expressing its willingness to
re-accommodate the hutment dwellers and offered to give certain portion of plot
of land to Municipal Corporation free from encumbrances as per the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme. The Managing Committee of the original society have
executed an agreement dated 16.07.1997 that the applicant and gave development
rights in favour of the applicant for the development of the property. They
have also issued general Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant. The
Addl. Collector (Encroachment) has fixed the hearing for the purpose of
issuance of Annexure- 2 when one M/s Sigtia Construction Pvt. Ltd. intervened
in the matter by representing that another society by name Ville Parle Premnagar
Cooperative Society (proposed) had appointed the said Sigtia as developer. The
applicant was not a party to the writ petition No. 988 of 2004 filed by some of
the hutment dwellers not to issue annexure-3 and Letter of Intent in favour of Sigtia.
The applicant or the original society was not a party to the said writ petition
upon knowledge the applicant has taken out chamber summons in the petition to
intervene in the matter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and also
the chamber summons as it was too late for the applicant to apply to joint as
party to the said writ petition. The applicant again made a representation to
the SRA. The applicants are agreeable to obtain similar agreement from slum
dwellers in support of the said proposal with a view to develop the property.
petition No. 1277 of 2006 was also filed by the petitioners without impleading
the applicant before the High Court. It is submitted without making the
applicant a party the petitioner has obtained an order dated 27.06.20906
whereby this Court has directed the SRA to issue a Letter of Intent in favour
of Keya Developers. Hence the applicant is making the present intervention
application for recalling the said order dated 27.06.2006. In our opinion, the
above I.A. has no merits and is belated. No relief can, therefore, be granted
to the applicant. I.A. No. 8 of 2006 stands dismissed.
Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for Keya Developers submitted that Sigtia
did not take any recourse to any legal proceedings to challenge the termination
and by letter dated 10.06.2005 Keya was informed of the resolution appointing
it as developer to develop the property on the terms and conditions mentioned
therein. In view of the termination of Sigtia as developer two groups of slum
dwellers who had filed special leave petition before this Court against the
order of the High Court dated 11.03.2005 withdrew the special leave petition on
26.09.2005 and 13.04.2005 respectively. Sigtia was represented in the
proceedings and did not represent the factum of expiry/termination of the
agreement between Sigtia and the society. Keyas since the intimation of the
resolution of the society has been taking all steps within its power to prepare
for the development of the property including the appointment of M/s Anil Chawla
and Associates as architects and made arrangements for a transit camp for
residence of the members of the society during the period of re-development.
The Keya's has also made arrangements with HDFC Bank Ltd. for provision of loan
of over Rs. 12 crores towards the implementation of the project and is also
ready and willing to deposit such amount as this Court may determine by way of
security deposit. Keyas has also approached the SRA for grant of Letter of
Intent in its favour for the purpose of transit accommodation and has also
already incurred an expenditure of Rs.45,56,720/- Keyas has also not been
served with any notice or order of any Court with respect to any challenge to
the termination of the Sigtia or appointment of the Keyas as developer of the
property. In these circumstances, Dr. Singhvi submitted that the SRA was bound
to consider the application for issue of Letter of Intent to Keyas and Keyas
has also been approached from time to time by the society and its members for
taking further steps to commence the actual work of re-development of the
Keyas was unable to commence the actual work of re-development for want of
Letter of Intent from the authority in the present special leave petition No.
10281 of 2006. This Court passed the order in the presence of the counsel for
all the parties and deny that any fraud has been played upon this Court as
alleged. It is further submitted Sigtia has been terminated as developer of the
property long before the writ petition was filed in the High Court. According
to learned senior counsel Sigtia is not a necessary party to the special leave
petition and that it had the consent of more than 70% of the slum dwellers and
that the same is in any event irrelevant after the termination of the contract
with the society.
his submission, learned senior counsel submitted that the applicant has failed
to make out any good ground for the recall of the order dated 27.06.2006 and,
therefore, the said application is liable to be dismissed.
T.L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Vile Parle Premnagar
Society submitted that in view of the termination of the agreement given to Sigtia,
Sigtia is not a necessary party to the special leave petition 10281 and that
the SRA should be directed to consider only the application made by Keyas.
have given our anxious and careful consideration to the lengthy submissions
made by all the learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties
with reference to the pleadings, annexures etc. The applicant Sigtia have
explained to this Court as to how the deposit of Rs.2.5 crores was not be
deposited with SRA. It also denied that the agreement entered into between Sigtia
and the society came to an end on 25.04.2005 by efflux of time. In this
context, Clause 22 of the agreement must be read as a whole and when so read,
it would be clear that the developer was to start the actual construction after
the issuance of the commencement certificate by the authority. Therefore, the
period of 3 years must be construed to begin from the date when commencement
certificate is issued and not from the date of execution of the agreement. It
was also submitted that the letters dated 25.04.2005 and 06.06.2005 were issued
by 2 or 3 members of the society who were acting with ulterior motive and in
collusion with the rival developer. Even the SRA to whom the letter dated
06.06.2005 was addressed in its counter affidavit filed before this Court in
the present proceedings has stated that they did not take notice of the said
letter of termination as the letter was not supported by the relevant
resolution of the society. After 11.03.2005, Sigtia approached the SRA on
several occasions requesting for the issuance of the Letter of Intent but since
no response was coming from the Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra on 10.06.1995. In our view after
the dismissal of the special leave petition No. 19848 of 2005, the order of the
High Court dated 11.03.2005 attained finality and there was no proposal of M/s
Keya Developers before the SRA on 13.04.2006 and, therefore, there was no
question of SRA considering the proposal made by the new developer. In our
view, Sigtia was a necessary party to the writ petition and to the special
leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 as it directly affected by any order
appointing Keya as developer. The society has also entered into an agreement
and also executed an irrevocable general Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2004
wherein expressed its satisfaction with the progress in the work made by the Sigtia
and also by the undertaking dated 26.02.2004 where the society undertook to
continue with Sigtia as developer till the completion of the SRA project.
it is contended by Sigtia that the termination by the society on 29.04.2005 was
illegal and without authority, the Sigtia has not so far challenged the order
of termination by the society. This important factor has also to be taken note
off by the SRA at the time of considering the case of Sigtia along with Keya
Developers. It is also stated that the consent affidavits of more than 70% of
the slum dwellers had already been obtained by Sigtia. It is also submitted in
the rejoinder affidavit that Sigtia did have the technical expertise and
financial capability to complete the work and that all these issues were
decided in favour of Sigita by the High Court in writ petition No. 988 of 2004
by order dated 11.03.2005 which order has attained finality in view of the
dismissal of special leave petition Nos. 11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005. Sigtia,
after receiving the copy of the letters dated 24.05.2006 and 06.06.2005 sent a
reply dated 15.06.2005 wherein the Sigtia submitted that the purported
termination is illegal and without any authority and no further reply was sent
by the society to the said letter. Moreover, in the hearing held before the
Principal Secretary dated 20.06.2005, the representative of the society made no
arguments with regard to the purported termination of the agreement. Therefore,
it is contended that the society has not acted on the letter of termination and
that the matter has come to an end and, therefore, Sigtia did not file any
petition to challenge the purported termination. It is also argued that the
prayer in the writ petition No. 1277 of 2006 adversely affects the interests of
the Sigtia. It is stated that with the dismissal of special leave petition No.
19848 of 2005 all the applications filed in the said petition also stood
dismissed and, therefore, the petitioners in the special leave petition had no
right to approach this Court by way of writ petition making the same prayer
which was made in the application for directions filed in special leave
petition No. 19848 of 2005 and that the effect of the order dated 13.04.2006 is
that the order of the High Court dated 11.03.2005 which was not challenged in
the special leave petition attained finality and that in the application for
directions filed in the special leave petition No. 19848 of 2005 the society
had raised the issue of termination of agreement of Sigtia and appointment of
Keya developers and the same stood dismissed with the dismissal of the said
special leave petition.
as rightly pointed out by Mr. Arun Jaitley in any subsequent proceedings where
the termination of the agreement of applicant Sigtia with the society and
replacement of Sigtia a new developer is a subject-matter, Sigtia is a proper
and necessary party to it. We see much force and substance in the said argument.
In our view, the applicant Sigtia has also the right to have a hearing before
the SRA along with Keya Developers, the new appointee. It must also be seen
that the relief sought in the special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 though
only against SRA but in effect against the applicant Sigtia and, therefore, Sigtia
is the necessary party to any proceedings wherein the replacement of the Sigtia
with a new developer and the termination of the agreement with the Sigtia is in
issue and, therefore, Sigtia should have been made a party respondent in the
writ petition No. 1277 of 2004 as well as special leave petition No. 10281 of
2006. It is also not in dispute that Sigtia was impleaded as party respondent
No. 7 in the special leave petition which came to be withdrawn by the
petitioner therein on 26.09.2005 on which date Sigtia appeared through their
advocate in this Court. As rightly submitted by the learned Solicitor General
after the withdrawal of special leave petition No. 11318 of 2005 by the
petitioner Nazeer Khan Yakub Khan both the developers i.e. M/s Sigtia and Keya
Developers kept on submitting applications with the SRA. However, due to pendency
of the special leave petition in this Court, SRA was not able to take any
decision on the representations of the developers as well as the society. At
the time of hearing, our attention was also drawn to the guidelines and the
several conditions to be fulfilled by the slum dwellers/the society/ as well as
the developers and the remarks required to be obtained on the proposal from the
concerned authorities before issuing Letter of Intent. The SRA has also to
verify the resolution as passed by the general body of the slum dwellers
proposed society by majority for appointing or replacing the developers for the
development of the scheme. It is also necessary for SRA to verify and to see
whether the plot under the development is not affected by any reservation such
as playground or recreation ground in view of the stay granted by the High
Court in writ petition No. 1152 of 2002 and also to verify whether the proposed
appointed developer has the financial capacity to undertake and complete the
for the foregoing reasons, we hold that Sigtia is a necessary and proper party
to the special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 filed by Ramchandra Mahadev Jagpat
that the order dated 27.06.2006 was passed in S.L.P. No. 10281/2006 on the
basis of representation made by all the respective senior counsel appearing at
that time. The order was not obtained as playing fraud on Court as alleged by
the applicant herein. Now, it is brought to our notice and made out a clear
case as to why Sigtia was a necessary party to the special leave petition No.
10281 of 2006 and in the light of the directions given by the High Court dated
11.03.2005 in writ petition No. 988 of 2004 and of the order dated 04.05.2006
in writ petition No. 77 of 2006. We have, therefore, no hesitation to recall
our order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006. Since
the entire matter was argued at length now by all the respective senior
counsel, there is no necessity to rehear special leave petition No. 10281 of
2006. This apart in the concluding portion of our order dated 27.06.2006 in
special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006, this Court directed the SRA to issue
proper orders within two weeks from 27.06.2006. The said direction is also not
correct. This Court ought to have directed the SRA, if at all, to consider
issuing of the Letter of Intent in favour of Keya Developers in view of the
replacement of previous Developers M/s Sigtia.
therefore, allow the application I.A. No. 3 of 2006 filed by the applicant Sigtia
and recall our order dated 27.06.2006 passed in special leave petition No.
10281 of 2006 and pass the following order:- As directed by the order in writ
petition No. 988 of 2004 dated 11.03.2005 and order dated 04.05.2006 in writ
petition No. 1277 of 2006 the SRA is directed to call the two developers,
namely, M/s Keya and M/s Sigtia and dispose of their application for issuing
the Letter of Intent and to pass appropriate orders and in accordance with the Maharashtra
Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and Re-development Act, 1971 and also
strictly following the procedure for submission processing and approval of Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme and to Award the Letter of Intent to the developer who
satisfies the required qualifications and conditions and regulations and the
provision of the Act, 1971.
SRA is also directed to consider as to whether the guidelines and other
conditions are fulfilled by the slum dwellers/the society/as well by the
developers and issue notice to the society also and hear them and pass
appropriate speaking order within 3 months from today. The above direction is
issued in the larger interest of the slum dwellers and in order to rehabilitate
the poor slum dwellers and needy slum dwellers at the earliest. We place on
record the very valuable assistance and guidance of all the learned senior
counsel rendered to this Court and, in particular, the learned Solicitor
General inviting our attention to the proper procedure, guidelines and
conditions to be followed by SRA while granting the Letter of Intent to the
the IAs are disposed off as above. No costs.