Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of two Special Leave Petitions challenging a Bombay High Court order that had rejected writ petitions filed by Adarsh Estate Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit (Adarsh) and Saidham Co-operative Housing Society (Saidham) against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority's (SRA) decision to process Maruti Nagar Co-operative Housing Society's (Maruti) slum rehabilitation proposal. The dispute involved three societies of slum dwellers on plots owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Maruti had initially obtained Annexure-II (list of eligible slum dwellers) but it was cancelled due to fraud. Adarsh and Saidham then submitted proposals and paid scrutiny fees. Maruti approached the High Power Committee, which set aside the SRA's rejection of its proposal. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Adarsh and Saidham. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the SRA proposed a settlement for independent development of each society on their respective plots, which all parties initially accepted. However, Maruti later sought to withdraw its consent through a letter purportedly signed by 172 slum dwellers. The court appointed a Local Commissioner, whose report revealed that the letter was fabricated, with only six genuine signatures. The court rejected Maruti's application to withdraw consent, allowed the SRA's settlement application, and disposed of the petitions in terms of the settlement, directing that each society develop its property independently. The court emphasized that the settlement was fair and in the interest of slum dwellers, who had been deprived of decent accommodation for over 14 years due to the litigation.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Consent Withdrawal - Fabricated Document - The court examined the validity of a letter purporting to withdraw consent from a settlement. The Local Commissioner's report revealed that the letter dated 11th October 2018 was signed by only 6 persons, with other names plucked from an earlier letter. Held that the letter was a fabricated document and the withdrawal was invalid (Paras 8-9). B) Slum Rehabilitation - Settlement Terms - Independent Development - The court considered the settlement proposed by the SRA for independent development of three societies on separate plots. All stakeholders had initially accepted the terms. Held that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the interest of slum dwellers, and no prejudice would be caused by independent development (Paras 6-7, 9). C) Slum Rehabilitation - Delay in Development - Public Interest - The court noted that litigation between societies had delayed the project for over 14 years, depriving slum dwellers of decent accommodation. Held that the settlement should be implemented to expedite development and serve the public interest (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the withdrawal of consent by Maruti Nagar Co-operative Housing Society from the settlement terms proposed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was valid and whether the settlement should be implemented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court rejected I.A. No. 11905/2019 (Maruti's application to withdraw consent), allowed I.A. No. 97692/2018 (SRA's settlement application), and disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in terms of the settlement dated 16th April 2018, directing independent development of each society's property. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Consent withdrawal
- fabricated document
- settlement terms
- slum rehabilitation scheme
- independent development
- public interest
