Redevelopment not done in 10 years, Bombay High Court punishes Mumbai developer, know the whole case Trending Global News

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with a decision to remove a developer who has not taken concrete steps towards redevelopment under a slum rehabilitation scheme for ten years. The matter pertains to the Swapanpurthi SRA Cooperative Society in Kandivali West. In 2011, a developer was appointed for the redevelopment of the society, but for a decade, the developer did not take any effective steps towards construction work. In view of this, the Chief Executive Officer of SRA had given the freedom to the society to appoint a new developer of its choice after obtaining the necessary consent of the members. The order clarified that if the society decides to select a new developer, the new developer will have to pay the expenses incurred by the old developer.

‘Questions raised on the correctness of the order in the petition’

The SRA CEO’s order of February 1, 2021 and the AGRC order of July 25, 2022 regarding the society were challenged in court by the old developer. The petition raised questions on the validity of both the orders. The petition contended that the said order is not in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. At the same time, SRA’s counsel said that after considering all aspects, the authority has issued the said order. Advocate Sushil Upadhyay presented the case on behalf of the society. Justice Madhav Jamdar, looking at the facts of the case, said that majority of the members of the society seemed to be in favor of the new developer. All the slums have vacated their buildings. He has also received two years’ rent.

‘The new developer is working in a timely manner’

Justice Jamedar said that the new developer is taking effective steps to complete the slum project within the stipulated period. The SRA CEO’s order has kept in mind the interest of the old developer, ordering payment of actual expenses on the basis of the valuer’s report. Justice Jamedar clarified that the privilege (under Article 226 of the Constitution) can be exercised only when there is abuse of rights and neglect of responsibilities by the public authority. Such rights are expected to be exercised only against injustice. There does not appear to be any need for interference in the present case. Commenting on this, Justice Jamedar dismissed the developer’s plea.