SRA – Demolition of 17-years redeveloped building to give benefit of DPCR 2034 to new developer
On 19.8.2017, the petitioners – Developers were removed from SR Scheme under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. This was confirmed upto the Supreme Court.
Before removal, the petitioner had completed composite building no.1 of seven floors. The OC was issued only for floor nos.4 to 7 with 856.60 sq.mts earmarked as free sale area for the petitioners. Moreover, the former Developer was required to accommodate 911 slum dwellers and project affected persons tenements and on successful completion of the scheme would have been entitled to free sale area of 79,500 sq.mts.
In 2018, the Respondent No.3 – new developer was appointed. SRA issued LoIs to the respondent no.3 for the scheme. However, additional slum dwellers became eligible from 911 to 1619 in view of extension of cut-off eligibility date. Respondent No.3 decided to demolishing existing seven floors building with 18 storey building to accommodate additional slum dwellers and to provide increased unit size of 27.88 sq.mts under DCPR, 2034.
SRA had given approval to the proposal of Respondent No.3. The slum dwellers had given consent. The building was demolished.
The petitioners have claimed entitlement to the said free sale area of 856.60 sq.mts in the composite building no.1 even after their removal for failing to complete the SR scheme.
Whether new developer could re-develop duly constructed building and complete building with part O.C. taking the rehabilitated occupants once again as slum dwellers in the SR scheme to take benefit of new DCPR 2034?.
The “slum dwellers” loose their status and ceased to be slum dwellers once they are rehabilitated.
SRA granted part occupancy certificate on 7.9.2007 for the composite building of seven floors. However, on 13.3.2024, the notice under Section 353B of the BMC was issued. The building was not 30 years old. Therefore, the notice was bad in law and unlawful.
SRA could not have acted like a post office.
HELD that the entire action of the BMC and the SRA smacks of mala fide. SRA could not acted like a post office. We are unable to appreciate the stand of SRA in behaving like a private individual. In our opinion, the slum dwellers loose their status once rehabilitated. The demolition of the building was a back door entry to take over possession from the Petitioners frustrating their rights without following any process of law.
petitioners – Chamankars are entitlement to the area or compensation for the free sale area of 856.60 sq.mts. as per the market rate decided by SRA.
Judgment dated 21.1.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.747 of 2024 of Kamal Sevakram Jadhawani and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others with connected matters.
