Supreme Court Asserts Authority of Slum Rehabilitation Body Overruling Private Agreements

In a recent ruling on December 15, the Supreme Court emphatically declared that private agreements must not supersede the statutory directives of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. The court, underscoring the pivotal role of the SRA in implementing such schemes under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, rejected the enforcement of private agreements.

This decision builds upon the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Usha Dhondiram Khairnar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 11505, where it was established that the SRA should adhere to its own policies and circulars, without succumbing to the dictates of slum societies or private developers.

“Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia emphatically stated, ‘Thus, 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.'”

The case in question involved a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme proposed by the SRA for the slum at CS No. 1(pt) of Lower Parel Division at J.R. Boricha Marg. The ongoing dispute has halted the allotment process for the remaining towers, despite the completion of nine towers and the relocation of 473 slum dwellers.

Notably, the SRA, designated as the Planning Authority for slums under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966, mandates that over 70 percent of eligible hutment dwellers participate in choosing a developer. In this instance, the slum dwellers formed the “Shramik Ekta Co-Operative Housing Federation,” selecting Lokhandwala Kataria Constructions as their developer.

However, complications arose when a minority section, forming the “Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti” (SSS), interfered with the construction, leading to a compromise decree between the developer and SSS. Despite this purely private arrangement, the appellants from SSS insisted on preferential allotment, challenging the SRA’s decision to conduct a draw of lots.

The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the appellant’s claim, emphasizing that the private arrangement had no legal basis. The court affirmed the established procedure of allotment by draw of lots, as per Circular No. 162, and directed the SRA to proceed with allotment in accordance with the law.

In a concluding note, the court called attention to the developer’s circumvention of statutory procedures, urging the SRA to seek an explanation and take appropriate action. The ruling reinforces the authority of the SRA in the implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, emphasizing adherence to established procedures over private arrangements.