LexSAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI & ANR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 724 : 2023 INSC 1080 724 CASE DETAILS SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI & ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1359 of 2023) DECEMBER 15, 2023 [ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: An entirely private arrangement was arrived at between the Developer on the one hand and some of the hutment dwellers on the other. Slum Rehabilitation Authority had no role to play in it. Is private agreement as such enforceable against the statutory mandate of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued a Letter of Intent in favour of Developer for residential tenements – In 2007, the project was stalled by a minority section of the slum dwellers (appellant society) – The Developer fi led a civil suit seeking injunction against obstructers – During the pendency of the suit an MoU was signed between them, whereby the appellant society undertook to enforce self- development rehabilitation with cooperation of the developer – Towers which the appellant-society undertook to construct or supervise their construction were towers D, E and F, which were then to be occupied exclusively by the members of the appellant society – Pursuant to MOU, the appellant-society approached SRA to do allotment as per the settlement – Propriety: Held: The Civil Suit was at the behest of the developers against individual society and SRA was not made party to these proceedings – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of the SRA – The claim of the appellant was based entirely on terms of consent arrived between the Developer and them, which has no basis in law – SRA has to act in terms of its own policies and 725 circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based – It is also Circular No.162 dated 23.10.2015, that allotment will be done by draw of lots for all the hutment dwellers and same was sought to be followed by the SRA – The appellant society though has fi led two Writ Petitions subsequently in connection with the procedure for allotment undertaken by the SRA, yet it has not challenged the validity of Circular No. 162, instead it has sought to impose its private contractual rights over and above the statutory provisions which is not permissible – SRA directed to carry out the allotment of fl ats in accordance with law. [Paras 20, 21,22,23, 25,26] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Ram Chandra Mahadev Jagpat and Ors. vs Chief Executive Offi cer and Others, [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 658 : (2006) 11 SCC 661; Pramila Singh Suman vs State of Maharashtra and Others, [2008] 17 SCR 1517 : (2009) 2 SCC 729; Balasaheb Arjun Torbole and Others vs Administrator and Divisional Commissioner and Others, [2015] 6 SCR 750 : (2015) 6 SCC 534 – referred to. Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 118; Susme Builders Private Limited v. Chief Executive Offi cer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4822; New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3896; Smt. Usha Dhondiram Khairnar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 11505 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1359 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WPL No.8391 of 2020. Appearances: Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Rahul Kripalani, Ankit Yadav, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Aditya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Ms. Supraja V., SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI & ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Amartya Bhushan, Yojit Mehra, Prashant Gawali, Advs. for the Appellants. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv., Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aniruddha Joshi, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Omkar Jayant Deshpande, Mrs. Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Anil Rao, Mubarakka Mohammed Lokhandwala, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dechen W. Lachungpa, Anirudha M. Sethi, Sagar Ghogre, Vaibhav Ghogre, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Advs. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.