Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

I] Preface

“1.

This is a case of a sizable chunk of State Government's land, abutting the sea situated at Mahim within the Mahim Bay at Mumbai, occupied by slums. The Government however is nowhere in the scene, either to remove the slums or to rehabilitate the slum dwellers. Eventually the slum dwellers stepping into the shoes of their sentinel, decided to redevelop this land by appointing a developer in 2006. Thereafter, it has been rounds and rounds of litigation before different forums and twice before this Court. The reason being obvious, there being two groups of slum dwellers and two rival developers, having strong commercial interest considering the nature of the land and probably its proximity to the sea. The Government as also the different authorities under it, in the scheme of things, seem to be silent spectators, to the happenings between the slum dwellers and different developers. It is a sorry state of affairs for the slum dwellers, when their genuine interest stand superseded by extraneous interest.”

“3.

… Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the hands of the other stakeholders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a slum rehabilitation scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so-called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and scepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are languishing on such issues, either in litigation before courts and/or before the authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one forum to another.

……

5.

… It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that behalf. It is hence, for the Government and the Slum Authority to give its anxious consideration to these issues and in its wisdom to devise a substantial, nay a foolproof mechanism, by undertaking a study and identify these grey areas, so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing this beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly and firmly by all concerned. It is never too late.”

…..

57.

There cannot be a myopic approach to these issues of a delay in implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. Things as they stand are required to be seen in their entirety. The only mantra for the slum schemes to be implemented is its time-bound completion and a machinery to be evolved by the authorities, to have effective measures in that direction to monitor the schemes as a part of their statutory obligation to avoid delays. Non-commencement of the slum scheme for long years and substantial delay in completion of the slum schemes should be a thing of the past. In the present case, looked from any angle there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the delay of so many years at the hands of the petitioner to take bare minimum steps to commence construction. (emphasis supplied)

“45.

There can be no two opinions that the issues of encroachment on public land, mushrooming of slums on such lands and illegal constructions on such land, as also, on any open land in the city, and the total collapse of the machinery available in law to control these issues, adversely affecting the urban agglomeration, is a sad story of an invited misery and a massive failure on the part of the State Government and the municipal bodies. An overview of these adversities, depicts a sorry and painful state of affairs, having a harmful and an overbearing effect not only on those who are residing in the slums and unauthorized constructions, but also, the hard impact it creates on the infrastructure in cities and the continuous and successive damage to the limited resources. The consequence of all this, is ghastly and harmful. As to what is in store for the future generations cannot be imagined. Admittedly, these are larger issues to be effectively looked into by the policy makers before things further worsen, albeit there appears to be a stage of no return, unless aggressive planning and commitment to the constitutional principles is kept at the forefront by the policy makers. Happening of encroachments, unauthorized and illegal structures being put up and deliberate neglect to these issues, when all this is unpleasantly happening before the open eyes and to the knowledge of the authorities, is not without purpose. From the report of the learned Commissioner, it appears to be a deep rooted menace, perpetrated for years together, which has ruined the cities and its scare resources. There are vested interests as pointed out by the learned Commissioner, namely political interest, slumlords and ultimately the cancer of corruption, which is the primary cause, for the authorities not taking action to remove illegal structures which continue to exist for years together.

46.

However, it clearly appears that the State Government being aware of the grabbing of Government lands at the hands of these unscrupulous elements, from time to time, issued directives to the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Authority and other Chief Officers of the local authorities. Such directives made it incumbent to take all steps to protect the Government lands, by preventing grabbing of lands by encroachment and to register criminal complaints of such encroachment and taking stern action of demolition of the unauthorized constructions and unauthorized hutments. However, it appears that the said directives at all material times have remained to be dead letters. Learned Commissioner has referred to some of the Circulars, which, if were to be implemented in its letter and spirit, the scenario would have been completely different, from what it prevails today. The city would have been a better place to live. Hundreds of Government lands could have been saved, to be utilized for public purposes. The circulars are certainly binding on the Government and its officers, provided the officers had an intention to look at them.

47.

The menace of continued encroachments on Government lands and thereafter, illegal and unauthorized constructions being undertaken post encroachment, are also a result of an unwarranted protection being conferred on the slum dwellers by the policies of the State Government, which protect the interest of the slum dwellers by awarding a premium on such illegality. This merely for the reason that the government machinery failed to take any action to remove such encroachments and with impunity continued these encroachers to remain on government land for years together. The encroachments are of two categories, those who have encroached for commercial purpose (those who have grabbed public land for installing shops etc.) and those who have encroached for putting up structures for residential user. Under the government policies both these encroachers are recognized and rewarded by providing alternate tenements of the nature they were occupying. The government policies issued from time to time to protect such encroachers, if their names are found in the voters list on a cut-off date being fixed at the ipse dixit of the Government. In our opinion, fixing of such arbitrary dates to protect the illegality of encroachment and ultimately to reward the encroachers with a free of cost permanent structure on the same government land, is certainly not an exercise of power, the constitutional principles would permit. These situations have added to the alarming woes of the city. It is no more a secret that these policies, which appear to be innocuous and intended to primarily protect the slum dwellers, resulted to be also of a political concern, as these large slums also constituted potential vote banks.

48.

What can be the logic and any legal sanctity to a policy which rewards encroachment on public land by granting free of cost tenements, on the very same land amounting to a bonanza for its private exploitation? By such modus operandi, public land, merely because of it being encroached, vanishes from the public holding and most astonishingly the basis for the allotment of tenements under the redevelopment process, is identification of an encroacher by his voters ID, on the basis of an arbitrary cut-off date fixed by the government. In fact, such policies create a mechanism being made available to the slum dwellers and thereafter private interest like that of the developers, to obtain a surreptitious allotment of public/government land for commercial exploitation, for profits by a backdoor method, completely contrary to the well settled principles of allotment of State largesse, known to the Constitution. This more particularly, when there is an allotment of a small piece of public land for a lawful purpose, many a times there is a hue and cry. However, when large tracts of public land are being gulped by encroachers, would the legal machinery remain a mute spectator?

49.

There are policies as pointed out by learned Advocate General which protect the slum dwellers, despite those slum dwellers encroaching on the Government lands and remaining on such land for a substantial period. This happens purely on account of the inaction of the concerned public officials to remove such encroachments. It is necessary that these directives/Government Resolutions are discussed.” (emphasis supplied)

“111.

……. Regrettably, instead of moving in the direction to have a planned and sustainable development, the successive Governments together with the Corporation seem to have unabashedly allowed mushrooming of slums at the instance of squatters by encouraging them not only to encroach more and more of public property but, simultaneously, by enacting laws to protect such unauthorized occupation. Enacting laws to further the interests of the weaker sections of the society is the obligation of every State in terms of Part IV of the Constitution and any move in that behalf ought to and must be welcomed. People living in slums do equally have a right of decent living conditions, which can be ensured by relocating them with proper housing facilities. However, a vicious nexus involving high profile personalities, bureaucrats, builders and slum lords have created a situation where public property is first encroached without resistance being provided by the law enforcing agency, followed by a declaration of slum gradually progressing to redevelopment by builders ostensibly for slum dwellers but really to further the interests of the "haves". In the garb of legislation, in a novel manner, a fraction of the population including holders of public offices have continued to prosper by achieving their goals through impure means which are nothing short of betrayal of the trust that the people of this region have reposed in those responsible for an able governance. While it was the need of the hour to make housing projects a reality more effectively and with empathy, what has been laid bare is the apathy and indifference to cater to the needs of the hapless coupled with a complete lack of sensitivity. The reasons are not far to seek. Quite contrary to the ideals and values embodied in the Constitution which lay down the basic framework of the social and political structure of the country and sets out the objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common endeavor to secure happiness and welfare of every member of the society and despite taking oath to uphold the laws, actions of those in power and authority are now or other oblique invariably driven by political motivations considerations. No wonder, the casualty is the compassionate Constitution of ours. …

113.

…… We part with the hope and trust that the respondents, remaining alive to the duty cast upon them by law, would not precipitate any further cause of action and thereby necessitate the intervention of this Court with more stringent directions.” (emphasis supplied)

“9.

Case after case, the Bombay High Court has been ruling that : (a) the developer is duty-bound to complete the project within the stipulated time and that (b) the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has not merely the power but a broader duty to ensure that the developer completes the project within time. We will refer to those judgments, not so much to certify that the issue is no more res integra, but to emphasise that the rulings have not had the desired impact, much less compliance. The reason is that, neither the developer nor the authority is asked to face the consequences of their derelictions. That Section 13(2) is a power coupled with duty is clear from the judgments of this Court and many other judgments of the High Courts, however experience tells us that this recognition of a statutory duty in itself is not sufficient. Until and unless duty is identified with accountability, judicial review is ineffective. …..

11.

A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1000 : (2008) 1 Bom CR 1] , held that SRA has been conferred with certain powers and each one of them is coupled with a duty. If the slum dwellers are eligible to be rehabilitated at the site and within a reasonable period, they cannot be left at the mercy of developers and builders. The slum dwellers cannot be expected to occupy a transit accommodation endlessly, without proper maintenance, and hygiene. An independent and impartial implementation, supervision and monitoring of the projects is the purpose for which the authority has been set up under the Act. …...

46.

In any event, execution of the project under the slum rehabilitation scheme cannot be viewed as a real estate development project. There is a public purpose involved, and that is inextricably connected to the right to life of some of our brother and sister citizens who are living in pathetic conditions. While we reject the justifications given by the appellant for delaying the project, we are fully conscious of the dereliction of the statutory duty of SRA in ensuring that the project is completed within time. We have already expressed our opinion that the CEO and SRA are accountable for their actions. While we reject the justification for delay, we record our dissatisfaction about the indifference, amounting to negligence on the part of CEO and SRA. … … … .”

II. FACTS

“99.

The SRA and whosoever is concerned in regard to the slum redevelopment need to be conscious of the ground realities namely that it is an herculean task in a city like Mumbai to remove any encroachment on private and public land. It is equally difficult for a private owner of the land to safeguard its land and prevent encroachment. This is the sad story, as encroachment does not happen by such encroachers simplicitor squatting on the land, invariably the encroachment is backed inter alia by slumlords, criminals, social workers, politicians (as the squatters would be vote banks). For a bonafide landlord, it is impossible to fight with such forces and keep litigating on removal of encroachment. Thus, to achieve removal of the encroachment, is seen to be impossible for the landlords and for public bodies like State Government and Municipal Corporation as also the Airport Authority, as major public lands in the City of Mumbai have vanished from the public pool and are subjected to private development by developers under the garb of slum re-development, as the rulings of this Court on several such issues would remind us of these woeful realities. In these circumstances, persons like the developers who are interested in commercial exploitation of any land under the slums may it be private or public, who are backed by other powerful forces and many times also by the government machinery, initiate proceedings under the Slum Rehabilitation Act for declaring private land as a slum. The moment such a declaration takes place, a nightmare and one of the most difficult journeys any citizen who owns land, commences namely to pursue litigation on such a declaration. It is hence as good as a preliminary capital punishment in so far as the ownership rights qua the private land are concerned. The way forward is just to be imagined. This being the case immediately developers who keep track on such development potential purportedly at the behest of the slum society come forward on a purported appointment by a slum society. In reality it is seen that it is the developer who actually forms the slum society. He is the one who is taking steps to enter into a development agreement with the society and the slum dwellers and put up a proposal before the SRA through his architect, everything in the name of the slum society. This for the reason that there is a bonanza of FSI of a free sale component available to be developed by the developer. The question is why should the developers have such bonanza on a land of somebody's ownership or of a private ownership. Thereafter, the SRA purporting to exercise some pious obligation would, under a label of social sympathy and purportedly to forward the object of the Slum Act, commence a process to permit development at the hands of such developer and in a given situation, start proceedings to acquire the land. To say the least, we can certainly take a judicial notice that this has been a sad reality, replete on this branch of slum jurisprudence, as majority of these cases are asserted by the developers with all resources and legal ammunition they could have.” (emphasis supplied)

“ O R D E R

This Committee directs the Chief Executive Officer / SRA to complete the following exercise for ascertaining 70% consent of eligible slum dwellers:

a)

The Deputy Registrar / SRA is directed to convene special meeting of all eligible Slum Dwellers belonging to all Housing Societies situated on the plot of land under subject S.R. Scheme and chair the meeting for taking fresh consent of eligible Slum Dwellers as per certified Annexure-II issued by the Competent Authority irrespective of any previous consent, if any, given by those Slum Dwellers to either of the developers viz. Applicant No.1 or Respondent No.3.

b)

This Committee further directs the CEO / SRA to depute the representative of Competent Authority viz. Additional Collector ( E/R) Mumbai, (Eastern Suburbs) who will remain present in meeting until the entire process is completed.

c)

The entire process of special meeting will be carried out with videography and as per circular issued by the SRA.

d)

This Committee also directs the Deputy Registrar / SRA that at the time of obtaining the consent of eligible Slum Dwellers, each consent should be obtained on separate paper which shall be counter-signed by the Deputy Registrar as well as the representative of the Competent Authority authorized by the SRA and a list of all such consents shall be prepared and signed by the Deputy Registrar as well as the representative of the Competent Authority at the end of the meeting.

e)

Each such consent to be then clubbed together and thereafter, it should be ascertained as to in whose favour there is more than 70% consent of eligible slum dwellers.

f)

Based on the report of Deputy Registrar/SRA, CEO/SRA is directed to take further necessary steps for further implementation of the subject S.R Scheme. The action envisaged in paragraphs (a) to (d) hereinabove shall be complied with and completed by 30th September 2011 by the SRA.”

“1.

The learned Advocates appearing in the above three writ petitions have tendered draft amendments. They seek amend the writ petitions in terms of draft amendments. The draft amendments are taken on record and marked “X, X-1 and X-2” respectively, for identification. The Advocates for the petitioners are allowed to amend the above petitions in terms of the draft amendments marked “X, X-1, X-2”. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Reverification dispensed with.

2.

The learned Advocates appearing for the parties have tendered consent terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked “Y” for identification. Save and except the State of Maharashtra, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the High Power Committee, the consent terms are signed by the parties and their respective advocates. Undertakings given in the consent terms are accepted. The above three writ petitions are disposed off in terms of consent terms.

3.

The earlier interim orders stand vacated.

4.

In view of disposal of Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012, Chamber Summons No.91 of 2017 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.” (emphasis added)

“7.

The Federation has now approached, one Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited "Ruparel”) to act as the developer for the purposes of undertaking the development of the Property under the aegis of regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR") read with the Slum Act The Federation hereby agrees to appoint Ruparel as the developer for the development of the Property The Nikajes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa hereby confirm the appointment by the Federation of Ruparel as the developer of the Property. Pursuant to protracted discussions and negotiations the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group, including AGNPL and KKB, Richa and the Federation and Societies have arrived at a settlement arrangement pursuant to which it has been agreed the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group, including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa shall be compensated for the amounts expended by them respectively for the Slum Scheme, by the Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa have accepted the cancellation and termination of their respective rights to develop the said Property and/or to implement the Slum Scheme, and (i) accorded their irrevocable consent no objection to the appointment of Ruparel as the new developer to undertake the development of the Property and the implementation of the Slum Scheme subject to payment of the agreed amounts by the Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel to the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa in lieu of their respective rights, title, interest and claims with respect to the Slum Scheme and as compensation for the efforts and amounts expended by them. Accordingly, the Parties hereto have agreed to record the full and final settlement of the Disputes, with no claims outstanding and or any demands, in the manner more particularly set out in these Consent Terms. .… …

10.

All the disputes between the parties (including the captioned Petitions and the Other Proceedings) shall stand mutually and amicably resolved and/or settled, with no claims outstanding on the following terms, conditions, covenants, declarations and undertaking.

10.1.

The Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa hereby undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall not in any manner whatsoever be the developer/s for the purposes of the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property or any part thereof. All documents pursuant to which the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa have acquired development rights and / or any entitlement and / or any other rights over the said Property, if any, shall stand terminated and / or cancelled and the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa undertake to handover such duly cancelled documents to Ruparel within 3(three) days from the date of execution of these Consent Terms.

10.2.

The said Property shall now be developed by Ruparel who shall be the sole developer of the said Property and shall be solely entitled to implement the Slum Scheme in accordance with the Slum Act, Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 and the extent provisions of the law For this purpose

(a)

the Nikaljes (including Adishakti) the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa hereby irrevocably and unconditionally relinquish and release all their respective rights, title and interest if any to implement the slum scheme on the said property,

(b)

Nikaljes (including Adishakti) the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agree that Ruparel shall be solely entitled to implement the Slum Scheme on the said Property as the new developer thereof under the aegis of Regulation 33 (10) of the DCPR; and

(c)

the Federation and its committee members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to this Hon'ble Court that Ruparel shall be entitled to all development and appurtenant rights to implement the Slum Scheme on the said Property as the new developer thereof in place and stead of the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa;

(d)

the Federation its committee members hereby agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court, that within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of execution of these Consent Terms, they shall do all acts, deeds and things as maybe necessary for the purposes of implementing these Consent Terms including the appointment of Ruparel as the developer of the Property.

(e)

The Federation and its committee members hereby agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court, that within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of execution of these Consent Terms, they shall cause the Societies and their respective members to give their written Irrevocable Consents, Common Consents, Individual Consents, General Body Resolutions, Development Agreements, Powers of Attorney, Individual Agreements and/or such other documents as may be required for confirming the appointment of Ruparel as the new developer for the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property, including providing such documents as may be required for proving their eligibility under the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR read with the Slum Act.

(f)

the Federation and its committee members have confirmed that a final aggregate amount of Rs.45,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Crore only) was due and payable to Reliance Energy / Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited ("Adani") towards payment of electricity dues for consumption by the slum dwellers occupying the said Property, out of the aforesaid amount, at the request of the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their respective members, Ruparel had, for and on behalf of the the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their respective members, made an adhoc payment of a sum of Rs. 11,75,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Crore Seventy Five Lakh Only) leaving an amount of Rs.33,25,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh only) which is still due and payable to Adani. The details of the payment made by Ruparel to Adani is more particularly set out in the Annexure "6" annexed hereto. Ruparel confirms that it shall on behalf of the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their respective members make payments of the balance amount of Rs.33,25,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh only) or any lesser negotiated amount to Adani, from time to time. For sake of clarity the liability towards such charges payable to Adani by Ruparel for and on behalf of the Federation, the Societies their respective committee members, is restricted to balance amount of Rs. 33,25,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh only).

(g)

the Federation and its committee members are aware that Ruparel has expended and will continue to expend monies for and on behalf of the Federation and the Societies as recorded in these Consent Terms and for the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the Property. Accordingly, the Federation and its committee members, hereby agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall not, until the Slum Scheme is fully implemented on the said Property, cancel and/or revoke and/or terminate the appointment of Ruparel as the new developer for the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property including Development Agreements, Irrevocable Power of Attorneys, General Body Resolutions Individual Agreements, Consents, Individual Consents, Common Consents upon the same being executed.

10.3.

Ruparel shall at its costs solely be entitled to perform all such acts, deeds, matters and things that may be necessary for the purposes of development of the said Property and implementation of the Slum Scheme, including but not limited to making necessary application(s) to the SRA for the purposes of implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property. Ruparel undertakes that on appointment as the developer for the Slum Scheme and subject to obtaining approvals, 'consents, permissions etc., it shall as required under the Slum Scheme expend such monies as may be required for the implementation of the Slum Scheme.

10.4.

For the purposes of development of the said Property the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa have spent large sums of monies. The Federation and the societies have agreed to compensate through Ruparel the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa by agreeing to pay them the following amounts towards the full and final settlement of their respective claims, Demands, etc.

Sr.No.	Party	The amount payable
1	Nikaljes (Including Adishakti)	Rs.69,83,44,800/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Crore Eighty Three lakh Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred only)
2	Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB)	Rs.58,74,80,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only)
3	Richa	Rs.92,52,20,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two Crore Fifty-Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand only)

The Parties agree that the existence and quantification of the aforesaid amounts expended by the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa, shall be binding on all Parties and shall not be disputed by any Party in any manner whatsoever.

10.4.

In consideration of Ruparel being appointed by the Federation and the Societies to undertake the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the Property the payment of the aforesaid amounts shall be made directly by Ruparel (for and on and behalf of the Federation and the Societies) to the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa.

10.5.

The Federation and the Societies hereby agree to compensate, through Ruparel, the Nikaljes (including Adishakti) a sum of Rs.69,83,44,800/- (Rupees Sixty- Nine Crore Eighty-Three Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) ("Nikalje Compensation"), which shall be paid in the following manner:

(a)

a sum of Rs.3,35,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Thirty-Five Lakh only) has been paid by Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies) ("Nikalje Initial Paid Compensation 1") prior to the execution hereof (the receipt whereof Nikaljes doth hereby admit and acknowledge of and from the same and every part thereof doth hereby forever release. acquit and discharge, Ruparel, the Federation and the Societies forever);

(b)

a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) has been paid by Ruparel ….. …… …

10.5.5.

Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and Societies) agrees to make the aforesaid payments as set out hereinabove on the terms and conditions mentioned herein. … … … .

10.5.7.

Ruparel shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for offering possession of the area of the Nikaljes on account of any event of force majeures or on account of any act and/or omission not attributable to Ruparel, including but not limited to the following:

(a)

non-availability of steel, cement, other building material, water or electric supply for a period of not more than six months or

(b)

War, Pandemic, Civil Commotion, Riots or Act of God; or

(c)

Any notice, order, rule, notification of the Government and/or other public or competent authority or

(d)

changes in any rules, regulation, bye-laws of various statutory bodies and authorities affecting the development and the project.

Provided however that the Nikaljes hereby agrees to ignore any delay on account of force majeure as stated hereinabove and/or for any reasons beyond the control of Ruparel.

10.6.

The Federation and the Societies hereby agree to compensate, through Ruparel, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) a sum of Rs.58,74,80,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Eight Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only) ("Bhatt Group Compensation"), which shall be paid in the following manner:

(a)

Ruparel will pay to Bhatt Group Rs. 40,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crore only) out of the Bhatt Group Compensation, in the form of constructed residential area on the said Property being area admeasuring, 24,242 square feet RERA carpet area (i.e. 21,212 square feet RERA carpet area to Aditya Bhatt ("the Aditya Bhatt Area No 1") and 3,030 square feet RERA carpet area to AGNPL ("the AGNPL Area"), respectively), @ Rs. 16,500/- per square feet RERA Carpet Area in a finished ready to move in condition (hereinafter "the Aditya Bhatt Area" and "the AGNPL Area" is collectively referred to as "Bhatt Group Compensation No 1"); and …. … …. … … ...

10.6.1.

Ruparel (for and on behalf of the Federation and the Societies), has on or prior to the execution hereof given to the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) a sum of Rs. 18,74,80,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Crore only) by way of a is refundable security deposit and which has been paid as under: (i) a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) paid vide RTGS dated September 7, 2020, bearing No KKBKR52020090700792009 2) a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- RTGS Dated September 15, 2020 bearing No KKBKR50220091500729546 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. Hiranandani Meadows branch by Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies) to Bhatt Group on or before the date of execution hereof. The Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) do and each of them doth hereby admit and acknowledge and of and from the same and every part thereof doth hereby acquit, release and discharge the Federation, the Societies and Ruparel forever. ("the Bhatt Group Security Deposit No 1"); .. … .. … …

10.6.2

….. …. .. ….

10.6.9.

.. … ..

(iii)

Ruparel shall issue duly signed allotment letters on or before December 31, 2023 (after obtaining relevant Commencement Certificates in respect of the Bhatt Group Compensation 1) for flats comprised in the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1, more particularly each allotment letter stating the flat no., wing, floor, building name/ location, drawing/ plan of the flat, the completion timeline as per the present consent terms and further stating that the said allotment is issued pursuant to the present Consent Terms. It is clarified that Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL shall be liable to pay all further charges for development charges, society & advance corpus fund charges, charges for any facilities such as fitness center/health club, goods and services tax. It is further clarified that Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL shall be charged the aforesaid amounts at par with what will be charged to the purchasers / allottee/s of other units/ premises in the said Project. Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL will be provided with one car parking per flat (which will either be 1 BHK / 2 BHK / 3BHK as per the sole discretion of Ruparel) irrespective of its configuration. Ruparel hereby agrees and undertakes that Ruparel shall not create any third-party rights in respect of the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1,

(iv)

Thereupon, Ruparel shall as and when called upon by Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL execute Agreement for Sale/ Sale Agreement transferring the right, title and interest in favor of the said Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL with respect to any or all of the flats comprised in the Bhatt Group Compensation No. 1as per the requisition of the said Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL. Ruparel shall also as and when called upon by the said Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL come forward before the registrar of sub-assurances for registration of the said Agreements duly executed. The stamp duty and any taxes as per applicable law in respect of the Bhatt Group be solely borne by Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL.

(v)

Ruparel shall complete the construction of the said flats comprised in the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 and hand the same over to the Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL along with the occupation certificate with respect to the said flats comprised in the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 on or before December 31, 2026, subject to force majeure clause as mentioned hereinbelow.

(v)

Ruparel shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for offering possession of the Bhatt Group Compensation on account of any event of force majeures or on account of any act and/or omission not attributable to Ruparel, including but not limited to the following:

(a)

non-availability of steel, cement, other building material, water or electric supply for a period of not more than six months; or War, Pandemic, Civil Commotion, Riots or Act of God; or

(b)

War, Pandemic, Civil Commotion, Riots or Act of God; or

(c)

Any notice, order, rue, notification of the Government and/or other public or competent authority; or

(d)

changes in any rules, regulation, bye-laws of various statutory bodies and authorities affecting the development and the project. …

10.7.

The Federation and the Societies (through Ruparel) hereby agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court to compensate Richa with a sum of Rs.92,52,20,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Two Crore Fifty-Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) ("the Richa Compensation"), by payment of the same in the following manner:

(a)

a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakh only) has been paid by Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies) ("Richa Initial Compensation") prior to the execution hereof (the receipt whereof Richa doth hereby admits and acknowledges of and from these and every part thereof doth hereby forever releases, acquits and discharges Ruparel, the Federation and the Societies);

(b)

a sum of Rs. 70,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Crore anly), ("the Richa Balance Compensation No.1") to be paid by the Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel to Richa shall be paid within a period of 12 (twelve) months with a grace period of 6 (six) months and an additional grace period of another 3 (three) months from the date of filing of these Consent Terms in the following manner.

(i)

Ruparel shall pay a sum of Rs. 13,74,80,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore Seventy-Five Lakh Only) ("the Richa Balance Compensation No.1A"), to Richa in lieu of the adjustment between the Bhatt Group and Richa as more particularly described in clause 10.6 2, 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 hereinabove.

(ii)

Ruparel shall pay a sum of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Only) ("the Richa Balance Compensation No. 1B) to Richa in lieu of the adjustment between the Nikaljes and Richa as more particularly described in clause 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 respectively and

(ii)

Ruparel shall pay the balance amount of Rs 44 25 20 300-(Rupees Forty-Four Crore Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty thousand only) ("the Richa Balance Compensation No. 1C to Richa)

The Richa Balance Compensation be paid by Ruparel for and on behalf of the Federation and Society) in the manner as mutually agreed between Ruparel and Richa.

(c)

a sum of Rs. 20.02,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Two Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) ("the Richa Balance Compensation No.2) shall be paid by the Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel to Richa within a period of 12 (twelve) months with a grace period of 6 (six) months and an additional grace period of another 3 (three) months from the date of filing of these Consent Terms in the manner to be mutually agreed between Richa and Ruparel's

(d)

Ruparel undertakes to this Hon'ble Court to fulfill the commitment (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies) given in clauses 10.7.(a) to 10.7.(c) that is the previous sub clauses.

10.8.

It is hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agreed between the parties that neither the Nikaljes, nor the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB), nor Richa, nor the Federation, nor the members of the Federation, nor the members of the Slum Societies, shall in any manner whatsoever raise any objections, claims, hindrances and issues in relation to Ruparel's right, title and interest over the said Property, as developer, and they hereby unconditionally give their No Objection to Ruparel to be the new developer for the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property. The Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB), Richa, the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their respective members hereby agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court to render necessary co-operation and separate to Ruparel and to sign all such deeds, documents, papers etc. as may be required in this regard.

10.9.

It has further been agreed between the Nikaljes, Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa that, save and except what has been agreed by the Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel under these Consent Terms, the Federation and or Societies and or Ruparel shall in no event be held liable and or responsible for any liabilities, demands, claims, etc. made by any person/s arising from inter-se disputes between the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa, if any, whether in present or in future nor shall the Federation and the Societies, and or Ruparel be called upon and or any claim and or demand, etc. be made by the Nikaljes, Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB), Richa and/or any associates of the Nikaljes, Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and/or Richa and or any person claiming through either Nikaljes and or Bhatt Group and or Richa against the Federation and or Societies and or Ruparel in any manner whatsoever.

10.10.

It is hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agreed by and between the Parties that Ruparel and/or its sister concerns and or group entities shall be entitled to amalgamate and / or club the Slum Scheme with any other slum scheme/s or other schemes as may be permitted under applicable laws. However, the same shall not prejudice the entitlement of the said Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) to receive Bhatt Group Compensation 1 as more particularly described hereinabove in the said Property and the obligations of providing the Bhatt Group Compensation 1 shall be in case of such amalgamation binding upon Ruparel, its sister concerns and/or group entities being part of/developers of/beneficiaries in any manner of the said amalgamated scheme and such entities shall be considered as parties claiming through Ruparel under these consent terms and therefore execution of these presents shall be binding on these entities. Ruparel shall take the necessary undertaking from such entities to that effect without which any such amalgamation shall lapse.

10.11.

The Parties agree, confirm and consent that Ruparel shall be entitled to create a mortgage / charge / lien in respect of its rights to develop / implement the Slum Scheme on the said Property based on the letter of intent to be issued by the SRA from time to time, save and except upon the Bhatt Group Compensation 1. The Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members, their respective members hereby agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall jointly and or severally pass necessary resolutions as may be required from time to time for the purposes of enabling Ruparel to undertake the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property including but not limited to (i) creating mortgage / charge / lien in respect of its rights to develop / implement the Slum Scheme on the said Property based on the letter of intent to be issued by the SRA from time to time and (ii) enter into joint venture agreements, joint development agreements, agreement for assignment of development rights, supplemental agreement/s, development management agreement, deeds of rectification, deeds of confirmation, deeds of indemnity, power/s of attorney, undertakings and such other incidental documents with third party developers / investors / co-venturers / person/s. Further the entitlement-of- any party entering into joint venture, joint development, taking assignment and or transfer of development rights, taking the project on a development management basis and /or joining with Ruparel for completion of the Sale Component in any form shall be subject to the rights of the Bhatt Group with respect to the Bhatt Group Compensation No. and any consideration payable to the Bhatt Group as more particularly described herein and the obligation to allot, transfer, complete and handover the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 shall be equally binding upon the said third party and these Consent Terms shall be birding upon them. Further the mortgage/charge/lien in respect of the rights to the said slum scheme shall also be subject to the obligation to prove the Bhatt Group Compensation No 1:c the Bhatt Group and further payment of any consideration in the event of default of such loan arising out of the said mortgage/charge/lien the financial institution and/or lender entity shall not have any rights upon and/or charge upon the Bhatt Group Compensation No 1 and /or upon any proceeds/funds payable to the Bhatt Group as consideration and further such Financial institution and/or lender shall they take over the rights on behalf of Ruparel ensure that the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 shall be allotted, transferred completed and handed over to Aditya Bhatt as per these Consent Terms and the Consent Terms shall be binding upon them. … … …. …

10.14.

Owing to the operation of the interim order/s passed in the captioned Petitions, the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their respective members hereby agree to this Hon'ble Court to do all acts, deeds and things as maybe necessary for the purposes of implementing these Consent Terms including the appointment of Ruparel as the developer of the Property within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of execution of these Consent Terms, time being of the essence.

10.15.

The Federation, the Societies and their respective committee members agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court to cause their respective members / slum dwellers to vacate their respective structures/hutments that they are occupying on the said Property as and when called upon by Ruparel to do so, time being of the essence. .…

11.

These Consent Terms are executed by the parties with the intent to bind the parties hereto and/or any and all persons claiming by, through, under or in trust for the executing parties.

12.

The Parties are executing these terms by mutual consent, of their own free will and desire and without any nature of force, fraud, threat, undue influence and / or coercion from anyone.” (emphasis supplied)

ORDER

(i)

Order dated 1st March 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012 is recalled and the same is set aside and Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012 is restored to the file;

(ii)

Review Petitioner Nos.1 to 15 and Chembur Siddharth Colony Shatabdi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Pranali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Siddharth Nagar Samjhota Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are directed to be impleaded as the Respondents in Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012;

(iii)

It is clarified that we have not considered the merits of the dispute involved in the Writ Petition and the same is expressly kept open;

(iv)

It is further clarified that various contentions raised by the contesting Respondents as far as the merits of the said Redevelopment Scheme are concerned, are expressly kept open and the same can be agitated in the said Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012;

(v)

Review Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(vi)

In view of disposal of the Review Petition, all Interim applications do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly.” (emphasis supplied)

1.

On 23 September 2022, the following order was passed:

“ 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that there is a change of advocate and the Vakalatnama is in process of being filed.

2.

This Petition is moved by six Petitioners stating to be members of Respondent No.4–Co-operative Society, which comprises of 29 societies for the purpose of implementing Slum Redevelopment Scheme in respect of the stated plot of land situated at Chembur. The prayer sought in this Petition is to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to grant the name reservation and certificate of registration to Respondent No.4– Society. The grievance of the Petitioners is that unless the societies are registered, the Slum Redevelopment would not proceed and Respondent No.5–Developer must take steps in that regard.

3.

The Learned counsel for Respondent No.5–Developer states that he is ready to register the society, however, there are impediments in the way.

4.

The learned counsel for SRA seeks time to take instructions as to how the Slum Redevelopment Authority, who is entrusted with the task of overseeing the process of Slum Redevelopment intends to proceed in this matter.

5.

At the request of learned counsel for the SRA, stand over to 7 October 2022.

2.

The learned counsel for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority states that instructions have been received that the representation of the Petitioners would be decided as per law within a period of three weeks. We make it clear that we have not looked into the merits of the representation of the Petitioners and it is for the authority to decide the same as per law.

3.

Writ petition is disposed of.”

“1.

These are the proceedings where the SRA needs to file an affidavit. Let the affidavit be filed within a period of 2 weeks from today. Copy of the same be furnished to all the parties. The other Respondents who intend to file an affidavit, they are also free to do so.

2.

As contended at the Bar , in our opinion, the present Petition would also be required to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 678 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012. List all these proceedings along with the present Petition on the adjourned date of hearing.

3.

We, however, observe that redevelopment of the slums in question where the Societies have formed a federation of the Societies namely ‘the Chembur Siddharth Colony Pravartan Co-operative Housing Society’ (registered) need to take an appropriate view of the matter by calling a General Body Meeting of all the Societies. Considering the fact that the litigation is pending for more than 14 years, the development has not progressed so far. An appropriate decision would be required to be accordingly taken as we do not find that the litigation and/or adjudication of these proceedings in any manner would help the parties. What is required, is that a well considered decision, should be taken, so as to forward the redevelopment of the slums and more particularly, when it is already delayed for such long period. Accordingly, let appropriate steps in that regard be taken and be informed to the Court on the adjourned date of hearing.

4.

In the meantime, in the event, a resolution is not brought about after hearing all the stakeholders, we permit the appropriate party to file an interim application for further appropriate orders as the parties may desire. All contentions in this regard are expressly kept open.

5.

Needless to observe that any meeting for settlement of the issue would also be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. In the event, such meeting is proposed to be held, we direct the representative of the SRA to remain present at such meeting. The date of the meeting be informed to the Competent Authority of the SRA at least 4 working days in advance.

6.

Permission to file rejoinder.

7.

For the time being, we list the proceedings on 17th December 2025 (HOB).” (emphasis supplied)

(Translation of the letter dated 4 February 2026)

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Brihanmumbai

No.: SRA/Adm/Work-1/TE-2/61/2026

Date: 04 FEB 2026

To,

1.

Shri Prakash Birje, Deputy Chief Engineer-2, SRA, Brihanmumbai

2.

Smt. Vandana Gewaraikar, Deputy Collector, Mumbai City, SRA, Brihanmumbai

3.

Shri Mahesh Avtade, Finance Controller, SRA

4.

Smt. Sandhya Bavankule, Assistant Registrar, SRA

Subject: Regarding the SRA scheme of Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Housing Federation SRA Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed) on CTS No. 470 (part), 471 (part), village Chembur.

With reference to the above subject, in respect of the complaints regarding the said scheme, the following necessary action should be taken immediately on the issues relating to the Co-operation Department, Finance Department, Deputy Collector (Special Cell-2) Eastern Suburbs as well as Department of Deputy Chief Engineer-2.

Sr. No.

Recommendation in the inquiry report

Concerned officer to take action and action to be taken

1 For the process of selection of the developer, as per Smt. Sandhya Bavankule, Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Assistant Registrar, Co-Promoption Regulations-2034, there is a provision operation Department, SRA, to obtain the consent of 51% of eligible hutment Brihanmumbai shall, as per the dwellers of the proposed societies. On perusal of the recommendation in the report, Report of the Assistant Registrar dated 16/12/2025 take immediate action as well as the Report dated 30/12/2025 in this regarding holding a GBR matter, it appears that, infact, it is actually necessary (General Body Resolution / to convene a General Body Meeting of the total meeting) and submit such 1564 eligible hutment dwellers in the rehabilitation report. scheme and obtain the consent of 51% hutment dwellers therefrom. However, in the process of selection of the new developer, as stated above, a General Body Meeting has been held only in the presence of a total of 39 representatives, being 2 representatives each of the proposed societies of the proposed federation, and on that basis a report has been submitted that there is 51% consent of the eligible hutment dwellers of the proposed societies, without conducting the process of verifying in a General Body Meeting the number of eligible hutment dwellers of the proposed societies and obtaining the consent of 51% eligible hutment dwellers therein. From this it appears that the number of eligible hutment dwellers of the proposed societies has not been ascertained by holding a General Body Meeting and the process of verifying the consent of 51% eligible hutment dwellers therein has not been carried out. Therefore, in the presence of the authorised officer of the Co-operation Cell under the Authority, it is necessary to convene a General Body Meeting of all hutment dwellers who are eligible as on the date and time of the meeting and verify the consent of 51% hutment dwellers.

2

On the basis of the documents submitted by the developer, the Finance Department has certified that

Shri Mahesh Avtade, Finance Controller, SRA.

	the company has share capital of about Rs. 30 crores. In Writ Petition No. 4836/2025, in the order issued by the Hon'ble High Court, while examining the actual financial capacity of the concerned developer, the Hon'ble Court has directed that it would be appropriate to examine the following aspects: a. To obtain an opinion from a Chartered Accountant regarding the financial position of the said developer and also regarding the eligibility and credibility developer. as a b. The Income Tax Returns of the last 4 years should be examined. In this case also, it appears necessary to re-examine the financial capacity of the developer as per a and b above.	As per the recommendations in the report, you yourself and a Registered CA should examine the financial capacity and other aspects and submit the report immediately.
3	When the Committee perused the file of the Deputy Collector (Special Cell), SRA, Brihanmumbai, containing the sample individual agreement, it was seen that the individual agreement of Shri. Ananda Baburao Pawar has been executed on 10/08/2021. A copy of the same is enclosed for reference. Hence, a doubt arises as to whether the developer has submitted (51%) individual agreements on or before 06/08/2021. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine all the individual agreements submitted. In view of the above, before granting any further building permission to the developer, it is necessary that all the above matters be complied with urgently and if the same is not done, appropriate action should be taken regarding cancellation of the appointment of the developer.	Smt. Vandana Gewaraikar, Deputy Collector (Special Cell), Mumbai City, SRA, Brihanmumbai. As per the recommendation in the report, all agreements should be re-examined and a report should be submitted immediately regarding whether 51 percent consent existed?
4	Regarding the SRA scheme of Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Housing Federation SRA Co-op Housing Society (Proposed) on CTS No. 470 (part), 471 (part), village Chembur. Until the necessary action is taken on the aforesaid issues and compliance with the said issues is achieved, no further action of any kind relating to the said scheme should be taken.	Shri Prakash Birje, Deputy Chief Engineer-2, SRA, Brihanmumbai. Until further instructions are received, further permissions for the said scheme such as LOI, CC, IOA should not be granted.

Accordingly, if, from the reports of the Assistant Registrar, Finance Controller, and Deputy Collector (Special Cell), it is found that the developer has committed any irregularities, then the Deputy Chief Engineer-2 shall send a proposal regarding cancellation of the appointment of the developer.

Sd/-(Dattu Navale) Secretary Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Brihanmumbai

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

SRA/CO/OW/2026/6997 Co-operation Cell, SRA, Brihanmumbai No.: SRA/Co-op/Tech. Soc. 6/2026 Date: 13/02/2026.

-: Special General Notice :-

With regard to the properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 470 (part), 471 (part), situated Mouje Chembur, Taluka Kurla, on which Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh using Federation), Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), is implementing the scheme, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, S.R.A., by letter dated 2/2026, has appointed us as Authorized Officers to convene a general body meeting me eligible slum dwellers listed in Annexure-2 of the scheme, for the purpose of Tying the consent of eligible slum dwellers in the scheme to the developer of the scheme.

Accordingly, a Special General Meeting of the eligible slum dwellers in the scheme been convened in accordance with Circular No. 169 dated 31/12/2015 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on Saturday, 28/02/2026 at 10:00 a.m. at: Shagun Party Hall, R. Marg, Chembur Colony, Mumbai - 400 074. The following subjects will be taken up in said meeting. You are therefore requested to remain present for the said meeting.

-: Subjects of the Meeting :-

1.

To verify whether the eligible slum dwellers in the scheme do or do not give their consent to the developer of the scheme, M/s. Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Group Company of Ruparel Realty).

2.

To elect the Chief Promoter of Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh (Housing Federation) Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed).

Sd/-R. N. Haldhe) Authorized Officer and Sd/-(Arun Jadhav) Co-operative Officer, Grade-1, S.R.A., Assistant Authorized Officer and Brihanmumbai Co-operative Officer, Grade-1, S.R.A.. Mumbai

Note: Eligible candidates desirous of contesting for the post of Chief Promoter shall obtain the nomination forms from the Authorized Officer on 24/02/2026 and 25/02/2026 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., and shall personally remain present and submit the same on 26/02/2026 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (The candidate filling in the nomination form must be a person shown as eligible in Annexure-2 of the Society.)

Place: Mumbai Date: 13/02/2026.”

“Writ Petition No. 7387 of 2026

(a)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter bearing No. SRA/Adm/Work-1/TE-2/61 2026 dated 4th February, 2026 issued by the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai being Respondent No. 4, and Impugned Notice bearing No. SRA/CO/OW/2026/6997 dated 13th February, 2026 issued by the SRA being Respondent No. 10 & 11, after examining the legality and validity thereof, quash and set aside the same;

(b)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, either by themselves or through their delegates, to issue all requisite permissions, sanctions and approvals, including but not limited to commencement certificates, in favour of the Petitioner, for the purpose of smooth implementation of the subject slum rehabilitation scheme, being undertaken on the Scheme Land bearing CTS Nos. 470(Pt), 471(Pt) and 366/6(Pt) of Village Chembur, Taluka Kurla, admeasuring approximately 66,000 square metres, situated at Siddarth Nagar, K.N. Gaikwad Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071;

(c)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, either by themselves or through their delegates, to handover possession of PTC as allotted vide letter dated 8th July, 2025 being Exhibit "P" hereto for relocating existing eligible slum dwellers therein;”

III. The Other proceedings

A) Recently filed Writ Petitions

“a)

that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling upon the records and proceedings relating to the issuance of LOI and after going through the legality, propriety and validity of the same, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Letter of Intent dated 6 August, 2021 (Exhibit “B” hereto) and all other approvals and approvals granted to and/or in favour of respondent no. 4 in relation to the redevelopment of subject slum project.

b)

that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the papers and proceedings in relation to the passing of the impugned order dated 20 July, 2011 passed by the HPC and after considering the veracity and validity of the same, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20 July, 2011 passed by the HPC (Exhibit ‘A’ hereto).”

“a)

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to immediately grant all necessary construction approvals, including Commencement Certificate (CC) to respondent no. 7-Developer and to ensure the actual commencement of the work and completion thereof in time bound manner.

b)

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent SRA to forthwith hand over physical possession of the 586 PTC tenements at Bhimwadi, Govandi as per Allotment Letter dated 8 July, 2025 to enable the immediate relocation of the eligible slum dwellers.

c)

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Letter/Order dated 4 February, 2026 (Exh. ‘A’ hereto), the Impugned GBM Notice dated 13 February, 2026 (Exh. B hereto), and the impugned PTC cancellation letter dated 6 July 2026 (Exh. ‘C’ hereto) issued by the respondent SRA.”

B) Pending Old Writ Petitions

Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011

(a)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 (Ex. 'A' hereto) issued by the State Government is illegal, unlawful and beyond the executive powers vested in the State Government under the Constitution of India;

(b)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings of the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 (Ex. 'A' hereto) and after going into the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same;

(c)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the High Power Committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 (Ex. 'A' hereto) issued by the State Government is illegal, unlawful and the said High Power Committee be wound up;

(d)

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the issuance of the impugned order dated 20th July 2011 (Ex. 'DD' hereto) passed by the High Power Committee on Application No. 348 of 2010 and after going into the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same and to restore the order dated 30th August 2010 (Ex. 'X' hereto) passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012

(a)

This Honourable Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of Certiorari or such other writ, orders, directions be passed calling for the records and proceedings of Application No. 348 of 2010 and after before the High Power Committee - II, perusal of the same and after going through the validity, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 20.7.2011, being Exhibit 'O', the same be quashed and/or set aside.

Writ Petition No. 678 of 2012

(A)

This Hon'ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction or order, calling upon Respondent No. 6 to produce case papers of Application No. 348 of 2010 and after going through legality and/or validity and/or propriety thereof, be pleased to quash & set-aside the impugned Judgment & Order dated 20/7/2011 passed by Respondent No. 6 in Application No. 348 of 2010 (Exhibit hereto) and Judgment & Order dated 30/8/2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 and Petitioners' Application No. 348 of 2010 (Exhibit hereto) be allowed with costs;"

“1.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the present proceedings. Primary contention of the Petitioners in WPL/7387/2026 is in regard to the actions, which the SRA had resorted in threatening to cancel the Letter of Intent (LOI), which was issued in its favour.

2.

On such backdrop challenge is mounted to the internal note/communication dated 4th February, 2026, which was addressed by Secretary, SRA, Dattu Navale to the officers of the SRA (at page 555 of the paper book). Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Assistance Authorized Officer dated 13 February, 2026, (page 63 of the paper book) titled as Special General Notice, thereby calling upon a Special General Meeting of the slum dwellers on 28 February, 2026 at 10.00 AM to discuss the issue as to whether the Petitioner (Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited) who was appointed as a developer was with consent of the slum dwellers, and to undertake the verification in that regard. Such notice is also being challenged by the Petitioner.

3.

Surprisingly, in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the SRA, a stand has been taken that the impugned notice dated 13th February, 2026 was issued in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 26th November, 2025 in WPL/19540/2024, however, on a careful reading of the order dated 26 November, 2025 passed by this Court it appears that the Court had not issued any such directions. In this view of the matter, Ms. Sabharwal, learned Counsel for the SRA on instructions states that the impugned notice dated 13th February, 2026 is being withdrawn and shall not be acted upon. We accept this statement as made by Ms Sabharwal. We however clarify that we have not examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case such action of the SRA was justified as the same would be subject matter of further order we would propose to pass on the present proceedings. Suffice to observe that the fact remains that the order dated 26 November, 2025 passed by this Court in WPL/19540/2024 did not order issuance of such notice.

4.

In so far as the other issues are concerned, Petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited (for short ‘Ruparel’) has contended that that it has been validly appointed as the developer to undertake the slum scheme in question and therefore the LOI issued in its favour ought not be disturbed, hence it would be entitled to proceed in the scheme.

5.

We have accordingly heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitoner-Ruparel, the learned Counsel for the Federation of the Societies which is stated to be formed by 21 societies, learned Counsel for the SRA, and the learned Counsel appearing for the individual slum dwellers. We have also heard the intervention application filed by the slum dwellers who are represented by Mr. Shridhar Y. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel.

6.

We propose to pass appropriate orders on the several contentions, which are raised, including to decide as to whether the ad-interim orders passed by this Court on 25th March, 2026 by the coordinate Bench of this Court would be required to be continued or otherwise.

7.

Accordingly, orders are reserved.

8.

List the proceedings on 31st August, 2026 for orders.

9.

Ad-interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.

10.

In the meantime, we are informed that the meeting in SRA is scheduled for tomorrow. Let the meeting be deferred by the SRA.”

(emphasis supplied)

IV. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon (Writ Petition (L) No. 7387 of 2026

V. Submission on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition (l) No.24849 of 2026 (Sonam Manjeet Jeth Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.)

VI. Submissions on behalf of societies/ slum dwellers in opposition to Petitioner- Ruparel Buildcon

VII. SRA’s case

“As mentioned above, the consent terms on the basis of which the present LoI was issued, has since been set aside and order taking on record the said consent terms has been admittedly recalled.”

VIII. Analysis and Reasons

1.14

A Slum Rehabilitation Project shall be considered preferably when submitted through a proposed or registered co-operative housing society of hutment dwellers on site. The said society shall include all the eligible hutment on site while submitting the S.R. Scheme and give an undertaking to that effect to SRA.

1.15

Where 51% percent or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum and stretch of road or pavement contiguous to it at one place agree to join a rehabilitation scheme, it may be considered for approval, subject to submission of irrecoverable written agreements of eligible hutment-dwellers before LOI.

Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to Slum Rehabilitation Projects undertaken by the State Government or Public authority or as the case may be a Govt. Company as defined in Sec. 617 of the Companies Act 1956 and being owned & controlled by the State Government.”

“9.

Mr. Aspi Chinoy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.13 submitted that rehabilitation of the slum dwellers had remained enmeshed in litigation before High Power Committee and this Court between the rival developers from 2006 to 2021. By the Consent Terms, the claims of the two rival builders were settled and it was agreed that Respondent No.13 would make a requisite application before SRA to secure LOI. He submitted that subsequently SRA has issued LOI dated 6th August 2021 to Respondent No.13 based on verification/acceptance of 51% individual agreements and consents of the eligible slum dwellers. He submitted that independently of the Consent Terms/ consent order, 51% individual slum dwellers have consented for the redevelopment of the Slum Scheme by Respondent No.13 and accordingly, LOI has been issued. Pursuant to the LOI, Respondent No.13 has incurred substantial expenditure on making payments to the erstwhile developers. Respondent No.4 - SRA has approved building plans of rehab building Nos.1 to 8 comprising of 3153 rehab and 96 amenity tenements. By oversight, the individual Societies' Managing Committee Resolutions dated 30th October 2020 remained to be annexed as Exh.9 and the same have been produced by the Respondent No.1 -Federation along with the affidavit-in-reply. He submitted that the individual Societies (either proposed or registered) had not played any role in the matter of the Proposed Rehabilitation Scheme after 2006. It is the Federation i.e. the Respondent No.1 who has all along represented all the slum dwellers. He submitted that the liability of payment is only of Respondent No.13 and no liability is cast on the slum dwellers or the Proposed Societies. He submitted that in any case, the said Consent Terms will only bind the Federation and will not be binding on the Societies i.e. Review Petitioners.”

“13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop slum Rehabilitation area

(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10) of section 12, the Chief Executive Officer shall, after any land has been declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area, including community economic activity area, if the owners, landholders or occupants of such land do not come forward within a reasonable time, which shall not be more than one hundred and twenty days, required for relocation and rehabilitation of protected and other occupiers justifying with the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for redevelopment of such land, by order, determine to redevelop such land by entrusting into any agency or other developer for the purpose.

(2)

Where on declaration of any land as Slum Rehabilitation Area, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that, the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been or is being developed by the landholders or occupants developers in contravention of the plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under subsection (10) of section 12, or in contravention of any provision of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or any condition specified in the approval or has not been developed within the time, as specified under such conditions of approval, he may, by order, determine to develop the land declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area by entrusting it to any agency or the other developer recognized by him for the purpose.

(3)

The agency or the other developer so appointed shall within a period of forty-five days of the order of the Chief Executive Officer, be required to deposit an amount of compensation payable to the outgoing landowners or occupants or developers, as the case may be, for expenditure incurred by them on payment made to any public authority, local bodies for receiving approvals for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and construction of rehabilitation tenements as determined by the Chief Executive Officer:

Provided that, such compensation shall not be payable by the agency appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, for any expenditure incurred towards construction to meet conditional obligations made to any third party by the landowners or occupants or previous developers, as the case may be. The Chief Executive Officer before passing such order shall obtain report from approved valuer independently appointed on his behalf and by the concerned parties to the proceeding before the Chief Executive Officer:

Provided further that, before passing such order by the Chief Executive Officer, the concerned landowner or occupant or developer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and time which shall not be more than thirty days of showing cause why the order should not be passed:

Provided also that, an appeal, if any, against the order of the Chief Executive Officer shall be filed before the Grievance Redressal Committee and order of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties."]

“21.

In High Court on its own motion (in the matter of) Jilani Building at Bhiwandi v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation, the same Division Bench said:

7.

………. We may observe that the municipal authorities cannot be pawns at the hands of land mafia, elected representatives and their own Corporators who appear to be totally disinterested in taking action against growing slums which is apparent, considering the large number of slums in the city. In fact, there is a clear impression that their action has encouraged slums and encroachments on public lands, obviously such inaction is for extraneous reasons. As far as the civic administration is concerned, in our opinion, primacy has to be given to the strictest implementation of the municipal laws, so as to prevent unauthorized and illegal constructions, prevent land grabbing by slum mafia, protecting government land and land belonging to statutory bodies. Also there is a need to do away with such policies which confer a premium illegality in favour of the encroachers, by granting them a windfall of State largesse, namely, a gift of valuable government land in the form of tenements on Government lands wherever situated. This is nothing but legalizing encroachments on prime public lands, in a manner nullifying the "public trust doctrine" and catering to private gains in the teeth of the well established Constitutional requirements while dealing with State largesse. By such mechanism, valuable public lands are gone forever. Given the financial burden on the public exchequer it is impossible for the government to acquire such prime land for any public requirement except at an unimaginable burden on the public exchequer. If such land acquisition cannot be achieved, in that case, is it not the duty of the State to save these lands from being thrown to the encroachers and private gains? Is it necessary that the encroachers are rehabilitated on the same land, when others who want to purchase a small dwelling unit are required to go miles away from such prime places, where encroachments on public land happen with impunity? There cannot be such an imbalance in the societal position in which the citizens are placed when Article 14 of the Constitution stares at the State. Merely because the slums turn into potential 'vote banks' such policy of rehabilitation on hypothetical cut off dates is being implemented under the garb of slum rehabilitation. This, in our opinion, is a mockery of the public trust doctrine. We were constrained to make these observations, as not only these larger issues stare at us in plethora of litigations reaching the Courts, but also for the reason that the building collapse with which we are concerned has taken place in a purported rehabilitation and/or a slum area. ….

23.

And we go further. We take it as firmly settled that the right to shelter is part of the right to life. But there is no fundamental right to trespass. There is no fundamental right to squat. There is no fundamental right under the Constitution to rehabilitation at the very site of trespass or squatting. Both decisions cited commend the need for the statute the Slum Act - to revisit this, and point out that it has no basis at all under the Constitution. Rather, it is against fundamental Constitutional precepts. Equally importantly, while the State may have an obligation to provide shelter, it has no Constitutional obligation to provide a marketable asset to anyone; and most emphatically not to someone whose initial entry on the land is illegal and unlawful. And yet this is precisely what the existing slum rehabilitation policy contemplates and promises. We are forced to ask, what is this if not the distribution of state largesse? One that comes at a very real public cost? Public lands for common public good are rendered unavailable. Every slum dweller is now confident in the assurance that the State will give him not just shelter but a high value marketable peace of real estate entirely free of cost.”

“ 118. If this be the position, then certainly, the slum dwellers merely by forming a society cannot assert that their rights are higher than the rights of the owners of the land and as successive Division Benches of this Court has held that the rights of the slum dwellers cannot be elevated (as if they are the owners of the property), so as to control the rights of the owners of the land under the garb of rehabilitation and through the resources of a developer, foist/dictate compulsory acquisition of land against the owner. The acquisition of the land for rehabilitation of slum dwellers can also never be on a pedestal and/or of a status of an acquisition of the land for public purposes in relation to public project to be undertaken by the State in exercise of its powers of eminent domain. This for two reasons firstly, it is a private group of persons (slum developers) who would be the beneficiary of such land acquisition and the second beneficiary would be the developer who would reap bonanza of a huge Floor Space Index (FSI) in undertaking construction of commercial/saleable premises. Thus, the only beneficiaries of such acquisition of private persons, the Government would spend a meager amount of compensation to be paid as per Section 17 of the Slum Act. Despite this clear position, quite unfortunately, the experience in relation to acquisition under the Slum Act is quite different. It is completely misunderstood, misapplied, misinterpreted or abused by the authorities; this considering the proliferation of litigation in this regard, concerning private lands as encroached, and what is happening to public lands is a mystery which can never be resolved.”

251.

It is often seen that slum dwellers on public land in the city of Mumbai are left completely misguided, uncontrolled and directionless in the absence of the public bodies or the Government extending their helping hand to do anything for them. In fact the entire decision to deal with this land was graciously left by the Government at the discretion of the slum dwellers who in turn are left playing at the hands of extraneous elements, when it came to redevelopment of the slums. The Government negligently does not play any role to safeguard such prime land and encroachments being consciously overlooked by the otherwise strong Government machinery, these lands become notified and protected slums. Still the Government turns a blind eye to take steps to alleviate the slums and resettle the slum dwellers, so that they can be accommodated to live in human conditions. In fact such neglect and apathy on the part of the authorities has brought about this precarious situation of the city facing large slums. Thus, eminently there is an urgent requirement of a robust institutional framework and effective steps to be taken so that the objective of proper urban planning leading to social and economic development can be achieved. It is for this reason this Court in Galaxy Enterprises v. State Maharashtra,^{77.2019 SCC OnLine Bom 897} has made the following observations:

“3.

There is a wealth of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court emphasizing on the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers, who live in inhuman conditions, so as to achieve in letter and spirit, the object and intention of a fairly old State legislation namely the “Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971”. Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the hands of the other stake holders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and skepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are languishing on such issues, either in litigation before Courts and/or before the authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one forum to another.

“Can the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not have a robust panel of bonafide developers who have genuine business interest to redevelop slums, of course with commercial benefits as conferred under the rules, and who can be appointed by an open and fair scheme of selection and allotment of slum projects and who would be accountable to the Authority?”

It is high time that learning from the past experiences, the burden on the ill equipped slum dwellers to be responsible to appoint developers and pursue the redevelopment scheme is removed and to do away the ordeal of the slum dwellers to go on knocking the doors of different authorities for years together when the developers fail to perform. The redevelopment to be undertaken professionally and in a time bound manner is the need of the day, even to fulfill the ideals which the Government intends to achieve. What is necessary is the initiative of a redevelopment, by genuine, honest and trustworthy developers appointed through the Slum Authority or any other Special Body created for the said purpose and not to leave it to the slum dwellers to re-develop the slums. This for the reason that the slum dwellers are supposed to be merely interested in their rehabilitation and can have no other interest. All these efforts are necessary, as a step forward to achieve an object of having an ideal city free of slums. It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that behalf. It is hence, for the Government and the Slum Authority to give its anxious consideration to these issues and in its wisdom to device a substantial, nay a foolproof mechanism by undertaking a study and identify these grey areas, so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing this beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly and firmly by all concerned. It is never too late.”

288.

In my opinion, what would weigh with the Court is the larger public benefit. The facts and circumstances would indicate that such fragmenting of the scheme would result in an irreparable injury not only to the slum dwellers but also to respondent no. 5 who has already invested substantial time, energy and money and who is to now to commence construction of the rehabilitation buildings. During the pendency of the proceedings before AGRC, about 644 structures of the slum-dwellers are already demolished which includes 205 structures in the petitioner society. Respondent no. 5 has also parted large amounts which include payment of the interim rent to the slum dwellers for temporary alternate accommodation.” (emphasis supplied)

ORDER

IX Concluding Paragraphs