Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, it is the final authority for implementing a scheme.    

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia dismissed an appeal filed by Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti (SSS) and another against the Bombay High Court's order of October 22, 2021. The appellants were aggrieved by the mode of allotments in towers built for rehabilitation of slum dwellers at Lower Parel Division at J R Boricha Marg at Mumbai.

The bench pointed out the allotment by draw of lots is not an arbitrary order of SRA but this is the settled procedure, long continuing and in terms of the law. It was also provided under the Circular No. 162 of October 23, 2015, that allotment will be done by draw of lots for all the hutment dwellers, it said.

Tracing the legislative history with regard to slums, the bench noted the approach of the executive and the legislature got changed with the concept of welfare state taking hold and the growth of awareness of the inhabitants towards their rights under the Constitution. The 1971 law was enacted with provisions for redevelopment of area and other benefits for the inhabitants.

In the instant case, the appellants entered into Memorandum of Understanding in 2009 with the developer in "the seemingly ingenious, yet unfair and even specious method adopted by the Developer in league with the appellants to bypass the statutory procedure must be deprecated," the bench said.  

The towers which the Samiti undertook to construct or to supervise their construction were towers D, E and F, under the said MoU which were then to be occupied exclusively by the members of the appellant Society i.e., SSS. Subsequent to this, the Society was also registered as a public trust on November 21, 2009, it noted.   

"It is an entirely private arrangement arrived at between the developer on the one hand and some of the hutment dwellers on the other. SRA has no role to play in it, rather it is an arrangement at the back of SRA and is in defiance of an already existing rehabilitation scheme, statutorily sanctioned, which was surviving," the bench noted.

"Admittedly, there is no provision in law by which the settlement terms entered into by two private players can be accepted and followed in violation of the statutory procedure given in Circular No.162 dated 23.10.2015. We do not agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant who only seeks to enforce a private arrangement arrived at between the Developer and the appellant in derogation of the procedure laid down by the SRA," the bench said.

The court noted the Memorandum of Understanding of June 23, 2009, is "an interesting piece" of document signed between the developer and the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which is also proposed to be registered as a charitable trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The society claimed that it had 770 hutments dwellers as its members. The MoU is between the developer and the society, to which most of the defendants in the civil suit were members of the society i.e., Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti. A purely private arrangement was thus arrived at between the developer and the minority members of the hutment dwellers whereby the society undertook to enforce self-development rehabilitation with the cooperation of the developer, the bench added. 

The towers which the Samiti undertook to construct or to supervise their construction were towers D, E and F, under the said MoU which were then to be occupied exclusively by the members of the Society i.e., SSS. Subsequent to this, the Society was also registered as a public trust, the court found.

"The SRA has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based... it has sought to impose its private contractual rights over and above the statutory provisions, which is not permissible," the bench said.

The court dismissed the appeal and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to carry out the allotment of flats in accordance with law. It vacated the order of status quo on allotment of flats.

"Considering the conduct of the developer who has evidently taken a surreptitious route bypassing the statutory procedure, the SRA would be failing in its duty if it does not seek explanation from the developer in this regard and takes suitable action in accordance with law," the bench said.

 

Cause Title: Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti & Anr Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors