Case Details Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 December 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1359 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Aniruddha Bose, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Citation

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 724 : 2023 INSC 1080

Issue for consideration

An entirely private arrangement was arrived at between the Developer on the one hand and some of the hutment dwellers on the other. Slum Rehabilitation Authority had no role to play in it. Is private agreement as such enforceable against the statutory mandate of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

Headnote

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and

Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued a Letter of Intent in favour of Developer for residential tenements – In 2007, the project was stalled by a minority section of the slum dwellers (appellant society) – The Developer filed a civil suit seeking injunction against obstructers – During the pendency of the suit an MoU was signed between them, whereby the appellant society undertook to enforce selfdevelopment rehabilitation with cooperation of the developer – Towers which the appellant-society undertook to construct or supervise their construction were towers D, E and F, which were then to be occupied exclusively by the members of the appellant society – Pursuant to MOU, the appellant-society approached SRA to do allotment as per the settlement – Propriety:

Held: The Civil Suit was at the behest of the developers against individual society and SRA was not made party to these proceedings – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of the SRA – The claim of the appellant was based entirely on terms of consent arrived between the Developer and them, which has no basis in law – 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 is also Circular No.162 dated 23.10.2015, that allotment will be done by draw of lots for all the hutment dwellers and same was sought to be followed by the SRA – The appellant society though has filed two Writ Petitions subsequently in connection with the procedure for allotment undertaken by the SRA, yet it has not challenged the validity of Circular No. 162, instead it has sought to impose its private contractual rights over and above the statutory provisions which is not permissible – SRA directed to carry out the allotment of flats in accordance with law. [Paras 20, 21,22,23, 25,26] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Ram Chandra Mahadev Jagpat and Ors. vs Chief Executive Officer and Others, [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 658 : (2006) 11 SCC 661; Pramila Singh Suman vs State of Maharashtra and Others, [2008] 17 SCR 1517 : (2009)

2 SCC 729; Balasaheb Arjun Torbole and Others vs Administrator and Divisional Commissioner and Others, [2015] 6 SCR 750 : (2015) 6 SCC

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. The appellants before this Court have challenged the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, which has dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellants. The petition was for quashing of the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as ‘SRA’). 2. SRA had proposed a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the slum at CS No. 1(pt) of Lower Parel Division at J.R. Boricha Marg. The project was for construction of a total built

View Subscription Plans →