Saturday, March 7, 2026
Latest:
2025High CourtLatestLegalMarch 2025Real Estate

Section 13(2) of Slum Act – Termination of Developer after 31 years

legaldeli

The petitioner was appointed as Developer and on 11.4.1994, the Development Agreement was executed.

On 30.7.2002, SRA issued the Letter of Intent in favour of the Petitioner.   However, there was no clarity on SRS implementation on the land reserved for recreational ground.   Revised LoI on 27.12.2010 for increased entitlement of 269 sq.mt. tenements.

On 4.10.2015, the Society passed resolution for SRS under DCR 33(5) and filed application before the CEO / SRA.  This was rejected holding that SRS could be implemented only under DCR 33(10).   The challenge of the Society before the AGRC was rejected by the order dated 25.10.2019.

On 14.6.2021, the show cause notice to terminate the appointment of the petitioner Developer. This was dropped by the order dated 6.8.2021 on the ground that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay but directed to take expeditious completion of the project.

However, AGRC allowed the appeal of the Society vide order dated 8.1.2024. and directed to implement SRS through new developer.

HELD that even after appointment of the Petitioner as Developer in 1994 and 31 years, the slum continues on the plot.

Moreover, the discovery of the forgery in the commencement certificate on account of the petitioner’s own admission given on 16.8.2021 assumes importance while permitting the petitioner to continue with the project after the order dated 6.8.2021.

The involvement of a third party in the implementation of the project in violation of the directions dated 6.8.2021 cannot be ignored while considering the termination of the Developer.

Third and most vital aspect was that after passing the order dated 6.8.2021 of CEO, SRA, the petitioner did not complete even a single step suggested in the Bar Chart.  In fact, by the time the impugned order dated 8.1.2024 was passed, the period of two years and five months had lapsed and the petitioner did not take any steps for SRS.   Even the petitioner had not bothered to secure even revised LoI under DCPR, 2034.  There are no pleadings about the steps taken by the petitioner for SRS after the order dated 6.8.2021.

Judgment dated 27.3.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.8931 of 2024 of M/s. Sushanku Builders Ltd.   Vs.  Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Bandra, Mumbai and others with connected matters

You May Also Like

Pension  – Struggle of Hamal of Savitribai Phule Pune University for pension after 30 years of service – Salutary observations of the High Court are “eye opener” for the authorities of Government.

legaldeli

Bombay HC Upholds Arbitral Award against Securitrans India in ATM Cash Theft Case

legaldeli

Bombay HC – Change in Shareholding by disinvestment is not transfer of land of State Government

legaldeli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“NDA”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: NDA does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. NDA assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: NDA does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. NDA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about NDA, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between NDA and you.

I Agree