Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 31 January, 2020
Supreme Court of India
Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through … on 31 January, 2020
Author: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy
C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 887-888 OF 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015]
Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj Panchayat
Banganga Rajak Samaj Co-operative
Housing Society (Proposed) & Anr. …..Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Ors. …..Respondents
JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These civil appeals are filed by the original petitioners in Writ
Petition No.1902 of 2010 filed before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, aggrieved by the order dated 03rd May 2012 dismissing the writ
petition and further order dated 01st of July 2015 dismissing the review
petition.
3. In the aforesaid writ petition filed before the High Court, the
Signature Not Verified
appellants have challenged an order of the High Power Committee
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
(HPC) dated 19th December 2009 by which, the demand made by the 2 nd
ARORA
Date: 2020.01.31
17:04:36 IST
Reason:
respondent Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) demanding premium of
1
C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015
an amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores Forty Seven
Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only), is
confirmed in respect of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 05 th January 2005,
issued in their favour for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The appellants
also sought directions to direct the SRA to issue Commencement
Certificate as per the existing guidelines.
4. The appellant no.1 is the registered society of slum dwellers, who
are stated to be residing on plot bearing no.CS No.51, 2/51, 3/51 of
Malabar Hill and Cumballa Hill Div. at Bhagwan Indrajit Road, Mumbai.
The appellant no.2 is a rehabilitator who was approached by the 1 st
appellant-society to develop the said plot and rehabilitate its members
under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, under Maharashtra Slum
Rehabilitation Act, 1976. On the proposal for the aforesaid scheme, a
LOI bearing no.SRA/Eng/875/D/GL/LOI dated 05.01.2005 has been
issued by the 2nd respondent-authority in favour of the 2nd appellant to
carry out the said rehabilitation. Since the said plot was within the area
of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), the said LOI was issued subject to
clearance by CRZ authorities as provided under Clause 46, by the 1 st
respondent and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority
(MCZMA).
5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Coastal Zone
Management Authority, 1st respondent-Government issued notification
dated 16.04.2008. The Government of Maharashtra has issued
directives under Section 37(1) and Section 154 of the Maharashtra
2
C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015
Regional & Town Planning Act. As per the above said directives issued
by the Government, developer/co-operative society is required to pay
premium @ 25% in terms of the Ready Reckoner in respect of Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme proposed to be undertaken on the lands owned
by the Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies.
In view of the said notification issued by the Government, the appellants
were demanded an amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores
Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine
Paise only) towards the premium.
6. Questioning the letter of demand issued by the 2nd respondent for
the aforesaid sum, the appellants have approached the HPC. Even the
HPC has considered the issue and rejected the claim of the appellants
that they are not required to pay the premium amount as much as they
were already issued LOI dated 05.01.2005. Questioning the demand of
Rs.8,47,69,029.69 and further order issued by the HPC, the appellants
have approached the High Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.1902 of
2010. The above writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order
dated 03.05.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the
review petition filed by the appellants has also ended in dismissal by
order dated 01.07.2015.
7. We have heard Sri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent-Government and 2nd respondent-authority.
3
C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015
8. The Letter of Intent dated 05.01.2005 was issued in favour of the
appellants in respect of the scheme, under Development Control
Regulation 33(10). Clauses 40 and 46 of the LOI read as under :
“40. That this LOI is valid for the period of 3 (three) months
from the date hereof. However, if IOA/CC is obtained for
any one bldg.. of the project then this LOI will remain valid
till completion of estimated project period.
…………
46. That the confirmation from Govt. regarding the
imaginary line from CRZ point of view shall be obtained
before asking approval of plans & if required the scheme
shall be revised accordingly.”
9. As the area covered by the scheme was within the CRZ, the
appellants have approached the Coastal Zone Management Authority
for clearance. During the pendency of the application, the Government
of Maharashtra has issued directives in exercise of power under
Sections 37(1) and 154 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning
Act. Clause 3 of the schedule thereto reads as under :
“3. Premium in respect of lands of public ownership:
The title of regulation No.1.11 of Appendix IV of Regulation
33(10) shall be changed as “Premium for ownership and
terms of lease”.
Also following provision shall be added after the existing
provisions of Regulation 1.11 of Regulation 33(10).
“In addition to above, the Developer/Co-op. Housing
Society shall pay premium at the rate of Twenty Five
percent in terms of Ready Reckoner in respect of Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme proposed to be undertaken on
lands owned by Government, Semi-Government
Undertakings and Local Bodies.”
4
C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015
10. It is contended by learned senior counsel Sri Shekhar Naphade
that in view of the delay in clearance by the Coastal Zone Management
Authority, the appellants cannot be prejudiced, for payment of premium
pursuant to directions issued on 16th April 2008. It is submitted that
appellants were issued Letter of Intent on 05.01.2005. The delay which
is to be attributed to Coastal Zone Management Authority cannot come
in the way of the appellants so as to recover huge amount of
Rs.8,47,69,029.69 towards premium. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the validity
of the Letter of Intent was only for a period of three months and the
same was not extended and no representation to that effect was filed so
as to keep it alive. In view of the same, the conditions notified in the GR
dated 16.04.2008 will apply for the scheme.
11. In this case it is to be noted that the Letter of Intent was valid for a
period of three months only. If, for any reason, delay is occurred in
obtaining clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority,
nothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation so
as to keep the Letter of Intent alive. When the validity of Letter of Intent
itself is for three months and if the same is not kept alive, we are of the
view that the premium is to be paid as per the Government Resolution
dated 16.04.2008. By virtue of the aforesaid notification, developer/co-
operative society is required to pay premium @ 25% in terms of the
Ready Reckoner, in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes proposed
5
C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015
to be undertaken on the lands owned by the Government, Semi-
Government Undertakings and local bodies.
12. In that view of the matter the demand made by the respondents is
in conformity with the law and we do not find any illegality in the
impugned orders passed by the High Court in either dismissing the writ
petition or the review petition.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil appeals are devoid of merit
and are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
………….…………………………………J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
….…………………………………………J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi.
January 31, 2020.
6