Mumbai: A builder appointed by slum dwellers’ society is a “mere licensee” meant only to execute the rehab project and profit from it, but if he delays completion, he can be terminated, the Bombay High Court held recently and upheld the removal of one appointed 31 years ago for a Bandra SRA scheme. The slum still continues to sprawl on the plot, said the HC.
The HC dismissed the builder’s plea against a Jan 2024 order of an apex grievance redressal committee under the Slum Act to remove him. Justice Sandeep Marne said though the builder “is exonerated of allegations of delay up to 6 August 2021, his conduct post that date is most certainly blameworthy.”
Sushanku Builders Ltd last year petitioned the HC to challenge the committee’s order to discontinue its appointment and to have the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) for 220 slum dwellers implemented instead through a newly appointed developer. The committee wanted him out on grounds of delay in the project since 2021. The builder, through counsel, argued disgruntled slum dwellers, who, since 2012, repeatedly involved the builder in litigation put a spoke in the smooth implementation of the project.
In Feb 2020, the HC held the petitioner’s appointment could not be terminated under the Slum Act. The Apex Court in 2023 confirmed the HC order, and the AGRC exceeded its powers in terminating its appointment, argued the builder. In Aug 2021, the SRA directed the builder to complete the project in 24 months, but until its removal, no further permissions under the new town planning act were taken, the HC noted.
The HC, after hearing all parties to the petition, said the builder sought to bring in a third-party developer, a factor relevant in considering its continuation. Besides, the HC observed, “Unlike the development agreement where rights in the land are vested in favour of the developer, no right gets vested in favour of a developer appointed to implement SRS.” The HC said there is thus a provision in the Slums Act to remove a developer on grounds of delay or development being in violation of other provisions. The HC underscored that the “ultimate objective behind the implementation of SRS is to ensure that the slum is cleared and the slum dwellers are rehabilitated in authorised structures in newly constructed buildings. The AGRC isn’t ‘perverse’; it ‘ultimately ensures that’ the slum project is expedited,” said the HC, holding that it found no reason to set it aside under its extraordinary jurisdiction, on grounds of “mere alleged erroneous exercise” by AGRC of its powers in ordering its termination.
The new builder said it would not, for two weeks, issue a mandatory two-week notice to the slum society for a fresh meeting, giving the builder four weeks to appeal to the SC.
